Roger Cohen nailed it on the head in a column several weeks ago: "Truth? Oh that just so 20th century......!"
(I may be paraphrasing rather than quoting.)
11
The Presidency needs to be fundamentally revisited after Trump is long gone. In essence, Trump, a criminal's criminal if ever there was one, has fully (and easily) gamed the system.
Trump is as brazen as was John Dillinger, or Al Capone. Liberal Democracy is a pushover for the racist authoritarian. In addition American citizens are enthralled with lone wolf sociopath. Can't get enough of 'em. Billy the Kid. Bonny and Clyde.
No one really cares if Trump is a criminal. In fact, many Americans secretly celebrate their outlaw, sociopath Exec in Chief.
We need to fundamentally re-examine the Presidency. England may provide a more reasonable model (without the Royalty, of course).
11
Trump persists because whites are being tired of being told we are racists at every turn, Americans are tired of being chided for our history (which most of us had no part in), men are tired of being told we are sexist, citizens are tired of being told we need to accept illegals and give them support systems that even poor citizens are not receiving, anyone can look at the economy and see that it is doing well, democrats are clearly a fractured party with extremists openly advocating for communism.... need more reasons?
13
Maybe if the psychologists plied their subjects with marijuana instead of alcohol, their "low-effort thought" would skew liberal, instead of conservative. It's worth a try.
3
Nothing changes a liberal into a conservative quicker than having a child.
11
The German sociologists, Horkheimer and Adorno, fleeing from Nazism, undertook what they referred to as their Authoritarian Personality studies in the US. Their findings are consistent with the picture drawn here. By the way their view was that Germany was the most culturally advanced state in Europe - before the rise of the Nazis that is.
Canada is a great place and plenty of room to accept migrants should the worst happen. Shame about the weather, but Trump and his friends are trying to change that.
By the way, it is astonishing to me that so many Trumpers read the NYT. Why, when there is Fox News?
7
Misinformed, gullible and primarily uneducated - this is the GOP base....
13
I talk to workers.
"Trump is an idiot but he gets the job done"
M.M. Blue Collar Worker Syracuse NY
Read "Becoming a Steel Worker Liberated Her, than her Job moved to Mexico"
NY Times, 2017/10/14 ›
to get what he could mean
Then read VOX , a left of center voice, frequently cited by Paul Krugman
"Trump’s new trade deal is better for workers than NAFTA was"
Vox Nov 30 , 2018
The Democrats had 8 years to do something for American Workers. The did not
10
Why not just call a spade a spade? The voters are LESS INTELLIGENT than ever. The dumbing-down of the American public is the creeping scandal that nobody wants to mention because that would expose the fundamental flaw in our democracy. If a plurality of the public are morons what kind of leaders and government, exactly, do you expect? And politicians, like journalists, aren't going to point out that the emperor has no clothes when they are depending on that very emperor to propel them to high office.
22
Why Trump Persists? Remember that old slogan, "It's the economy, stupid?" Well, it's the Electoral College, stupid. That antique relic of ultimate gerrymandering and blatant unfairness. It's the rule of the minority over the majority with a little crucial help from just plain cheating.
11
It's been that way from the beginning. Hasn't it?
There's always been GOOD America. "Land of the free and home of the brave." The "fair deal" America. The "square deal" America. The "Lady Liberty" America. The "Give me your tired, your poor" America.
The America I learned about in grade school. The America I cling to at this very day--and I'm seventy.
Then--just as old--the BAD America. The "KKK" America. The "Know Nothing Party" America. The "Joe McCarthy" America. The "Father Coughlin" America. The "Roy Cohn" America. The America of bigots--of fanatics--of haters. The America everlastingly down on--
--people who are DIFFERENT. On Jews. On Catholics. On Muslims. On Latinos. On Irish. On you name it.
And I am very much afraid: this is the "Donald J. Trump" America.
They say, once malaria gets into your system, it STAYS in your system. You can subdue it (with quinine)--you can drive it back (as it were) into the shadows--
--but you never quite get RID of it.
Same with BAD America.
I'm afraid we're seeing a recrudescence of BAD America right now.
I pray God we get rid of it.
Maybe we will.
I hope so.
16
So we’re knee-deep in fascism because of primal human psychology and lack of higher education? Why, then, when levels of higher education were much lower and primal human psychology was presumably the same, could George Wallace, the last guy who sounded like Trump, not get close to winning?
Of course Trump’s base is racist - the Republican base always is. But he got over in the electoral college by squeaking through in states that voted decisively, not narrowly, for a black guy - twice.
Trump narrowly took the Rust Belt because the Democrats sold out working class Americans to race-to-the-bottom globalization, he was the first major party candidate to run explicitly and vociferously against globalization, and his opponent was the free trader from hell in addition to being the consummate out-of-touch Washington insider.
If we ended class privilege in the globalization of labor markets and used available telecommunications technology to replace most American academics with English-speaking cyber commuters from India by beaming them into American university classrooms, I wonder how the academics Mr. Edsall cites would feel about globalization - and which candidates they would vote for.
7
That Donald Trump thrives on the poorly educated with millions of supporters is disturbing reality. Implied is that education is not the priority it should be among American families and that too many school districts are barely doing their job.
7
If there is one truism in the current era of American politics it is this: You can not be a good person and support Trump. Period.
13
This is a result of the substandard education we receive in the USA. We don’t teach civics. We don’t teach how government works. We don’t teach history so that people can link the past to the present. We don’t teach empathy.
Democracy and a civil society depends on an educated populace. We don’t have an educated populace.
It’s easy to live in China or Saudi Arabia. Everyone is of the same ethnicity and the state/religion dictates most aspects of your life. There is no need for the citizen to engage in anything but keeping ones mouth shut and following direction.
Is that the kind of state we want here?
9
Charts, diagrams and learned disquisitions all tend to miss the essential truth: when a voter looks at a candidate or an office holder and can say, "I'd do the same if I were him," the choice has been cemented. People look at Trump and see themselves. An investigation of how a lying, perverted "billionaire" has managed to have his image appear as the reflection in one hundred million American mirrors is truly worth pursuing. Those voters are done with leaders they cannot identify with. To break the hold of the mirror will require an opponent to shatter that illusion while simultaneously offering a superior identity for voters to align their self-perception within. Otherwise calling out - or even impeaching - the President merely embeds his reflected image more completely into his supporters' psyches.
5
Are we to thank Trump for bringing all this to the forefront? Perhaps. We would all like to think that we live in a country where racism, nationalism, sexism and just about every other -ism doesn't exist anymore. Yet the same problems persist, and I think that is due to the fact that, while we may have changed our language in talking about these things, we've never really changed our personal opinions.
3
Much of the expertise cited by Edsall here, as well as others I have read, starts with the model that there are two kinds of people (open-minded liberals and narrow-minded conservatives). Most of their research then doesn't find much to disagree with this, except a few find that the supposedly open-minded liberals are often hypocritical.
But there are potentially other approaches to the issue. For instance, many people may take a logical position that disadvantaged minorities would make more progress if they heard fewer elites making excuses for their counter-productive behaviors. Others may take an also-logical position that brain-drain and ambition-drain are hurting the poor countries that so many immigrants are leaving. Also, there are logically plenty of problems with having a large segment of the population here illegally, and so some discouragement is also logical.
I'm not necessarily supporting these views. But I can see how they could be held by people who are reasonable and genuinely sympathetic toward people who look different from themselves. Many of these may be Trump voters who could be won back if the models allowed consideration of more viewpoints. There is no doubt that Hillary lost a lot of votes for her "deplorables" line (slip-up language which many highly educated liberals said to themselves and to friends around that time and still do).
5
What is missing from this is any discussion of race - yes, conservatives tend to think poor people are at fault but only in inner cities - rural poor people are given a pass (note the farmer bail out) - because white Americans think of inner city as minority, while they think rural is white. The same thing with immigration - no-one is For illegal immigration, however why is there such focus now (illegal immigration peaked under Bush and has been going down since) and why is most of the focus on the Border wall rather than how most illegals get here by overstaying their visa. White Americans are more worried about Hispanic illegals. And it also interesting that Americans (who are ALL immigrants unless they are Native Americans) are now wanting to restrict legal immigration (esp. from certain countries which are all brown people). It would be interesting to see all of the data presented by race ie evangelicals supposedly support trump in the 80% range but it's only white evangelicals - this is all about a racial backlash from Obama presidency.
8
When an article like this uses the term "immigration" instead of "illegal immigration" throughout when discussing ambivalence by voters, it is no wonder they lose their tolerance and turn against the media.
It's illegal immigration that people are fed up with. And that includes "asylum seekers" who insist on a right of entry.
12
Trump basically ate the Democrats' lunch on trade, manufacturing, and other issues that are important to many Democratic and independent voters. Democrats can and should get behind these issues without embracing Trump's overt racism, xenophobia, and laissez-faire-deregulatory agenda): pushing to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.; addressing China's growing economic dominance and influence; reducing bureaucratic red tape and delay in the environmental review process for new infrastructure and housing projects. Take those issues back, and continue to hit hard on education, healthcare, and immigration policies that recognize legitimate opposing views, instead of just complaining all the time about what a monster he is.
8
"Members of labor unions and unorganized unskilled workers will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white collar workers - themselves desperately afraid of being downsized - are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.
At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for - someone willing to assure them that, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots...
One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans and by homosexuals will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion...all the resentment which badly educated feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet."
- Richard Rorty, Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America, (1998)
Richard Rorty (1937 - 2007) was an American philosopher and teacher associated with pragmatism.
Quoted from:
Ben Fountain, Beautiful Country Burn Again, (2018)
5
Your observation that the American public has not risen up against Trump is misguided. In 2018, there were record turnouts for midterms and anti-Trump sentiment resulted in many suburban districts ousting GOP Trump supporters including places where GOP had "safe" seats. Women disgusted by Trump's misogyny and bigotry led the charge, starting with the largest protests some cities have ever seen on post inauguration Day 2017.
2
It is education, education, education Mr. Edsall, and healthcare. What have the Reps done since their Messiah Ronald Regan declared government the big evil? They started cutting support for education mostly for two reasons: to support the greedy rich and keep the poor ignorant. Healthcare is declared a business and look at the consequences for all of us, except the rich.
The only societies that continue to be stable, and even thrive are the ones that provide good education and healthcare to their citizens.
Unfortunately, we are not part of that club.
7
Trump persists because there are a number of people in thus country who are just like he is.
5
Can it be true that “conservatives” are never ambivalent?Introspection from Democrats and inspection from academics and pundits about Democrats never ends but who challenges conservatives’ thinking?
1
It's not that 'Trump persists', it's that this sort of demagoguery and race-baiting has always existed. He represents the worst impulses of humanity. It's not that Trump persists - it's that the basest qualities of humankind will perpetually persist. Merely projecting these perceived problems with general humanity onto Trump, singularly for Trump being Trump, is fundamentally misguided.
In the words of the distinguished historian, Will Durant:
"Our states, being ourselves multiplied, are what we are; they write our natures in bolder type, and do our good and evil on an elephantine scale. We are acquisitive, greedy, and pugnacious because our blood remembers millenniums through which our forebears had to chase and fight and kill in order to survive, and had to eat to their gastric capacity for fear they should not soon capture another feast."
And we think the liberal world order to have evolved beyond our intrinsic barbarism?
I think not...
2
Well researched, well thought out Thomas, as usual. Keep up the good work.
1
"The election of Trump and his first three years in office have revealed a nation deeply ambivalent about immigration, race, equality, fairness — even about the ground rules of democracy itself."
And how did that come about you might ask? It has not just suddenly registered in people's mind. This has been a long time coming. Some element of these things has always been inherently American. But among the uneducated, poor educated and irrational minds, this small element has been blown up disproportionately by the G.O.P. during the last several decades. They have popularized racism, xenophobia, hate and championed single issues such as abortion to win elections. The GOP has done nothing progressive during this time to move our country and the world society forward. If it was up to their establishment (i.e. 1%), the 99% would live under their thumb for the eternity.
4
Thanks for the thoughtful writing, Mr. Edsall, and the deference you show to academic research. I suspect there aren't many low-effort thinkers who read your columns...they are missing out.
1
Fine Work!
Major Props to Karen Stenner, John Hibbing, Kevin B. Smith and John Alford because Finally! some people are getting fundamental about politics by invoking evolution & biology; and finally, something political in the NYT gets fundamental.
Props to Mr. Edsall for his research.
Here's a fundamental fundament: selected code for relationship interface, conserved across species: Fitness Beats Truth — see Donald Hoffman, "The Case Against Reality."
Some quotes from a talk by Dr. Hoffman:
"Fitness and truth are utterly different things."
"Organisms that see the truth go extinct when they compete against organisms that don't see any of the truth at all, literally none of the truth at all, and are just tuned to the fitness function."
"Perception is not about seeing truth; it's about having kids."
I submit that sub-codes of Fitness > Truth are:
Me > U; Us > Them; Short term > Long term.
Further, we're animals. Much of DNA is conserved. Some of our coding for relationship interface has been through the when-not-if physics of systemic collapse myriad times, aka, self-organized criticality; e.g., large famines, plagues, mass extinctions, meteor hits, wars, genocides, earthquakes, etc.
We sense we're early apocalypse, or at least sense the instability. We circle the wagons, then post hoc, manufacture reasons for doing so. Fundamentally, morality is a side-taking app. See Peter DeScioli.
Personally, I think world culture is beyond repair. It's over.
And The Horror Cometh.
2
An important point not made in this article is that Trump is not a conservative--he's a fascist. And he and those who support him want a one-party America. With Trump as president, the distinctions between liberal and conservative don't apply. Trump and his followers are on an anti-democracy island by themselves.
4
Thomas, while professors Stenner and Haidt suggest that 'balance' is a key factor in political position and commitment, Prof. Hersh, -- at Tufts is tougher and -- "hard on these voters, a group he describes as “college-educated white people, a demographic group that is now predominately Democratic.”
These voters, he writes,
do politics as hobbyists because they can. On the political left, they may say they fear President Donald Trump. They may lament polarization. But they are pretty comfortable with the status quo."
Regarding the "balance" between "comfort" and "toughness", I would suggest that we are now, under Emperor Trump, well beyond the comfort that soft/faux democracy might provide, and looking straight at the maws of functional (if disguised) Empire.
As I've commented earlier in here in the "Tim es":
Bernie is the only one with the courage and understanding to call-out Emperor Trump as an Emperor, and to fire a “Shout heard round the world” that will ignite an essential Second American people’s peaceful and complete “Political/economic & social Revolution Against Empire” — which puts people over the phony (negative externality cost dumping) profits of the UHNWIs, ‘Ruling-elite’, and < 0.01% of this unsustainable Disguised Global Crony Capitalist Empire.
2
A president without a moral compass breeds disdain. Moreover a citizenry which has a selective moral compass is deplorable and tragic. How do we claim superiority in the world and yet look away disregarding a leader and followers who fail the basic citizenry test of honesty. What have we become? Just a banana republic?
2
This article is fascinating. "Low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism." Ah, true words.
I work in an environment that occasionally allows me to overhear conversations that make me want to bang my head on the wall:
Two older white American women: "I thought Ivanka would come in and straighten everything out, but that hasn't happened."
A middle-aged son telling his mother: "Don't listen to the pundits, just read trump's policies and you'll see how brilliant he is."
A middle-aged white man telling a younger white man: "The New York Times and the Washington Post are just trying to sell newspapers -- that's why the write such trash and lies."
An old white man talking to another old white man: "To be honest I thought Sarah Huckabee Sanders was doing a fine job."
I also work with a PhD in neuroscience. He tells me that tests have shown that the amygdala, the part of the brain that reacts with fear to (unfamiliar) sight and sound, is much larger in conservatives than in liberals.
That might explain the white conservative American woman who grabbed my arm (I'm a white American woman) and pulled me toward her in Italy as we walked next to African men selling knock-off handbags spread out on a blanket. Alarmed, I said "What?!" "They're SO black," she whispered. She appeared truly frightened for me.
Or the highly conservative colleague who walked into my kitchen and yelled "what is THAT?!"He seemed frightened. It was a coffee grinder.
Fear.
5
Trump persists because of ridiculous policies enacted in states like Maryland. The undocumented obtaining driver's licenses. Certain counties, ie Montgomery, becoming 'sanctuary counties'. The undocumented overwhelming the construction trades in MD. Undocumented people having no respect for the Chesapeake Bay and it's natural resources. See this link:
https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/RecSuspensions.pdf
I've witnessed (and reported) these violations many times. Yet, the monthly list of transgressors is ALWAYS the same. I've yet to see a liberal explain this disparity in the raping of the Chesapeake's natural resources.
6
It actually has a lot to do with choices. As long as democrats/liberals focus all their attention on micro-identity politics - a diversity that *excludes* white straight males - they will alienate millions of people/voters. If they were truly inclusive they would never have to mention race, gender or other characteristics. Liberals in America are obsessed with race and gender and its politics pervade everything they do, say ant think. That's a political loser. People notice when they are excluded and there are an awful lot of white men who don't take to be delegitimised. Where do you expect them to go?
4
We're talking about 35% of the electorate and 20% of the population that ardently supports Trump. The reason they hold a "majority" view is that they've weaponize media (Fox), made naked racism acceptable and have a shameless, canny gaslighter in chief who knows how to command absolute media attention. We're better than this, but need to find a way to get people to put down their phones and wake up. Not optimistic.
2
Trump is popular with the "salt of the earth", religious, undereducated, victims of income inequality, latent racist, misogynistic, white Americans. That's about 40% of the population. There are more of us than them. Pick out one or two families in a battleground state and encourage them to register and vote.
2
I just wonder what those researchers were smoking when they conceived their drunk study.
2
"a nation deeply ambivalent about ...about the ground rules of democracy itself."
Do you mean about the Democrats attempt to gut the 1st and 2nd Amend and allowing lllegals to vote?
3
All Americans are going to have to look deep inside themselves soon and then they will find out what they really are.
Speaking of immigration policy, can’t wait to see how Bernie fares in a general election based on his position to end all deportations.
5
Thomas, while professors Stenner and Haidt suggest that 'balance' is a key factor in political position and commitment, Prof. Hersh, -- at Tufts is tougher and -- "hard on these voters, a group he describes as “college-educated white people, a demographic group that is now predominately Democratic.”
These voters, he writes,
do politics as hobbyists because they can. On the political left, they may say they fear President Donald Trump. They may lament polarization. But they are pretty comfortable with the status quo."
Regarding the "balance" between "comfort" and "toughness", I would suggest that we are now, under Emperor Trump, well beyond the comfort that soft/faux democracy might provide, and looking straight at the maws of functional (if disguised) Empire.
As I've commented earlier here in the "Times":
Bernie is the only one with the courage and understanding to call-out Emperor Trump as an Emperor, and to fire a “Shout (not shot) heard round the world” that will ignite an essential Second American people’s peaceful and complete “Political/economic & social Revolution Against Empire” — which puts people over the phony (negative externality cost dumping) profits of the UHNWIs, ‘Ruling-elite’, and < 0.01% of this unsustainable Disguised Global Crony Capitalist Empire.
1
You got it beyond wrong my friend! Us voters are not less tolerant, less empathetic, and are extremely interested in integrity, and that is exactly why the Dems have no chance in the upcoming election. We know an UNETHICAL zero integrity political hit job when we see it, i.e. the Mueller report that tanked, and abracadabra, Mueller failed so we now have impeachment! Absolute zero integrity what so ever.
4
This entire article could be summed up in one sentence...
"Low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism.”
1
So Trump voters are angry, intolerant, cruel and corrupt? Seems about right.
2
Roger Cohen nailed it on the head several weeks ago:
"Truth? Oh that's just so 20th century......!"
(Possibly not a precise quote.)
1
Democracy, itself, is in danger, with Trump.
I am afraid, that the American people think Trump is OK for 2020.
Democrats must wake up, to Trump's democracy threat, now!
I just saw an the auto license plate: D A N G - R
I suggest that Democrats wake up, this instant.
As Pete Seeger sang: (If I had a Hammer):
"I'd hammer out danger, I'd hammer out a warning
I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters
all over this land..."
(Perhaps, the Times can do a story on songs like this)
1
Mr. Edsall igors one thing and gives sort shrift to another.
He barely mentions the fact that the whiter the community, the more racist and anti-immigrant it is.
And he utterly ignores the fact that, on average, Trump voters are not economically distressed and are, in fact significantly wealthier than those who voted for the Democratic nominee in the last election.
Relative wealth and racism are hardly mutually exclusive. I still remember the days when in the wealthiest Christian, white areas of Connecticut, for example, EQUALLY wealthy Jews were barred from purchasing housing.
Trumpists did not vote for - and continue to support - Trump because they are squeezed economically, but because they won't tolerate any threat, however unlikely, to their absolute SUPREMACY.
3
Your better argument is why voters discount the hypocritical liberal left! To then, it’s about power and control by any means! And it’s real easy for someone like Trump to point this out.
5
Mr. Edsall's perceptive column certainly makes understandable the paradox of California which is the most "liberal" state in the USA. Mr. Edsall states that liberals are prone to move to the right, even if unconsciously. Well, many liberals in California are essentially conservative in dealing with the state's terrible problems involving homelessness, income inequality and poor schools. They evidence little regard for these real problems while virtue signaling about climate change, undocumented immigrants, etc. Where I disagree with Mr. Edsall is where he indicates that opposition to "immigration" is a conservative opinion. Many individuals who are otherwise liberal oppose illegal immigration and are generous on the subject of legal immigration. That is my position, in fact, and I do not deem it a "conservative" opinion.
9
What Edsall essentially highlights is much the result of the Sixties Generation which, while doing an admirable job in breaking down the relatively unthinking allegiance to family, religion, and government, not surprisingly did not do much to fulfill the human needs and desires those institutions had provided, a much harder job.
We have seen the results of that evolve over the decades, the latest manifestation being that politics, across the spectrum, is now largely serving the traditional function of religion, providing a community defined by unquestioning faith in received wisdom, the unbelievers not even worth interacting with lest one become morally tainted.
2
Hersh's arguments regarding political hobbyism does not hold up to scrutiny. Educated people tend to vote in higher numbers that uneducated voters. In addition, it was educated women, mostly white women, who ran for office in droves in 2018. Educated people are engaged with fundraising, organizing, and other political acts. Why would relatively affluent voters care about the poor and working class? Well, for starters, there are wealthy people all over the world and many of them are forced to hide behind barbed wire and armored cars. They can't let their kids walk down the street for fear they will be kidnapped. They can't drink the water that comes out of their tap. They can't go outside without a face mask. They have to hide money in overseas accounts in case the government collapses. They have to send their kids to college in Europe, the US, or Canada. Many relatively affluent voters want to live in a nation where everyone has hope of a better future, a chance at education, and a clean environment. Unless a society has hope, it turns to despair and it turns on those who have the most.
5
"But, she warned, “we may have tipped the balance too far in favor of unconstrained diversity and complexity,” pushing the boundary beyond “many people’s capacity to tolerate it.”"
I disagree. I think that inequality, of income, of opportunity, of resources, is the problem, not diversity per se. When resources of all kinds are plentiful, and people are less worried about their own survival, then people are more tolerant in general. When resources of all kinds become more scarce then people feel like they have to fight for "survival" of themselves and their nuclear group or tribe and they become much less tolerant of anyone outside their narrowly focused tribe. I think this is the dynamic going on in the so-called heartland.
Human behavior is still determined, to an amazing degree by the primitive behaviors which were genetically selected for by evolution thousands of years ago when we lived in primitive tribes. Trump's behavior is exhibit A when it comes to this.
2
Many working people don't just vote FOR Donald Trump, they're voting AGAINST the Democrats.
Something that Democrats, liberals, and progressives just can't seem to get through their heads is the fact that a lot of working people, not just Republicans, vote for conservative candidates because:
1) They resent the fact that so many people have their hand out to the government, and it obliges them by giving them an easier financial existence than WORKING people...enough with the handouts, get to work!
2) They want our government to control our borders, helping us to control our population. Overpopulation is at the core of so many of our problems, including poverty and climate change.
3) We need fair trade deals, even if it means paying a short-term cost. Is it fair to have a 65% tax on American wheat going to China, when they can import to the U.S. without any tax? How about a 28% import tax on American vehicles going to Germany, but only 1.4% on German vehicles coming to the U.S.? We have been subsidizing the world economy since WWII...time for that to end.
4) LGBTQN citizens already have the same rights as everyone else. Just be quiet and live your lives, like everyone else. It is possible to have logical reasons for opposing homosexuality, etc.
There’re more…retaining gun rights, regaining manufacturing capability & capacity, NATO fees…
The Democrats address none of these issues.
10
@Raz The truth is (and maybe some real research rather than listening to FOX or buying into the party line would help here)
1) people on handouts, unless they are corporate farmers, are not living better than working people
2) overpopulation in the US is pretty much nonsensical, we have huge swaths of land that are not being used, empty towns in the rural midwest, and huge amounts of urban areas, with services, like Cleveland, Detroit, etc that could accomodate a lot of new immigrants
3) trade is complex .. and Trump seems to favor simple solutions that aren't well thought out, mainly by ignoring qualified experts in favor of people seeking private gain
4) LGBTQN people don't really bother anyone .. and I don't see a whole lot of people discussing their preferences unless you feel obligated to go to their parade and be offended .. and .. I don't think S people particularly are so moral and correct .. lots of crazy irresponsible behavior and cheating on spouses, etc.
5) gun rights - so I can be shot in the mall
6) NATO fees - oh please, Europe has been a good market for us for years and would you rather have Russia or even the USSR on the Atlantic coast ?
1
A pretty good paper, but Edsall struggles here to stitch it all together. Students will find his traditional commitment to culling his email list for wise snippets on his subject. However, students will also take a bit of a ride as Edsall shows his range from the West Coast to Houston to Pennsylvania, but gets lost here and there. Students who follow this lead will get a passing grade, but it's not going to be an A or A-.
Nowhere in this article does Mr. Edsall ever address the grotesque wealth and income inequalities in our country which have been building for the past 40 years. "Scarcity" is a funny way of describing what is going on because wealth is only scarce for everyone other than the top 10% of our country. The other issue which matters more than educational level is the propaganda being blasted out day and night by Fox News, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Scarcity or fear of scarcity and lies blaming others are a toxic and potent mix. There is the problem and changing our tax code and reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would go far to address the problems.
11
I am a conservative in the dictionary definition of the word. The national debt? I hate debt and pay my bills and expenditures as soon as incurred. If the economy is good, now is the time to eliminate the national debt.
Instead, Trumpers are wickedly spending, cutting and eliminating taxes on the ones that should pay in. The least actually conservative people live lives of extreme excess.
Conservation of the environment, preventative healthcare and reined in costs, creating jobs, income equality, family planning, etc. That's being conservative and responsible.
The so-called Republicans and Trumpians represent wobbly excess and out of control budgets. Next, they plan to raid the nation's social security and Medicare funds that we grunt workers paid into and are actually entitled to.
Define conservative? It's always the Democrats that balance the budget and provide services.
9
@Anne Ridiculous. Come visit the great state of Maryland. It's taken Republican governors to rein in the Democrat excesses of the past decades. Baltimore is expecting the re-election of a Democrat mayor (Dixon) that was thrown out for corruption and theft. All that after the latest Democrat (Pugh) is facing charges and imprisonment. I won't even go into the murder rate per capita in Baltimore city. You want to see extreme excess. Come to Baltimore. Democrats have failed Baltimore and many of our once great Northeastern cities. Fact.
7
"What if the belief systems used to justify anti-immigrant policies and to justify race prejudice, for that matter — hostility to outsiders, insularity, high sensitivity to external threat..."
This is both disingenuous and obtuse on the part of Mr. Edsall.
To many people, controlling immigration is a matter of numbers and common sense.
The world population has increased from about 3 billion in 1960 to almost 8 billion today (a doubling time of a little over 40 years, assuming exponential growth). US population has increased over the same time frame from about 179 million to almost 330 million (a doubling time of just over 60 years). Both India and China are getting close to 1.4 billion inhabitants, right now.
Population is not a matter of race or racism, just mathematics. If we were to divide all of the land area of the Earth (including Antarctica, Greenland, all the deserts and mountains...), equally, amongst all the people of the Earth, each one of us would get about five acres (an acre is slightly smaller than an NFL football field, not counting the end zones). About 14% of that five acres would be arable, suitable for growing crops. Now, imagine trying to get all your needs for subsistence from that five acres (food, clothing, shelter & materials, fuel and energy, mining...). If U.S. lands were divided equally amongst its citizens, each would get about 7.4 acres. In India, the number would be about 0.3 acres per person, 1.7 acres for each Chinese.
6
When Mr. Edsall says American voters are showing themselves less interested in 'integrity' than Democratic pollsters and analysts thought they would be does he really mean they're less interested in political ideology than plain economic commonsense? The real defining feature of the left is commitment to political ideology even when it leads to and produces results contrary to economic reality. We've seen it again and again in countries all over the world; any country that adopts leftist ideology eventually suffers from an underperforming economy and falling standard of living. Regrettably, from the leftist point of view, most American voters are showing that they want an economy that works and if the 'underserved' or 'excluded' want to get into it they'll have to earn their way--never mind about 'fair shares' or 'social equity'. This is all pretty disappointing to Democrats.
1
Judging by the ongoing Democratic debates when only one will be the party choice, I can’t help but wonder whether "Borgen" the Danish series about a fictional female Prime Minister has led these good folks into believing that somehow they can all fit into leading our two party system next year.
We currently have no multiparty governmental system. Perhaps that would be a possibility sometime in the future, but it's still Democrats or Republicans with a sprinkling of various outliers.
Why Trump persists. This is an excellent summary worth rereading. However, as I glanced over the page, I noticed a piece about Trump lashing out at the media and the Democrats while at Davos. No sooner had this piece appeared then over one hundred comments about it appeared. I thought, that's another, simple reason why he persists. Readers are driven by some inner force to read, for the thousand or more times about Trump "lashing out." They are among those who make him persist. Whatever can one learn, benefit, be enlightened by reading that once again he's lashed out?
3
I think Liberals in many ways tend to be more "purist". Conservatives tend to see the big picture - if we win, we get to nominate and approved judges, which will enshrine for decades our world view. We can change regulations, the tax code, we can try to codify our religious views into government policy. Liberals tend to get caught up in fighting about who is more "progressive" for example. Look at how many Senators clearly stated Trump was unfit to be Commander in Chief, but now are all falling all over themselves to be his minions and cult members? Hillary is still attacking Bernie because apparently she still blames his challenge in some way for not getting elected, and his supporters not falling into line. That may be true, but her behavior at this point isn't helpful. Democrats should win the next election in a cake walk, but somehow I have a sinking feeling they will lose.
3
Let me see if I have this straight: psychologists "conducted a series of tests comparing the answers of two groups to ideologically revealing questions. The first faced time pressure or were forced to answer with distracting background noises.... The second group was asked the same questions with plenty of time to think and without noise or other distractions."
The first group gave less thoughtful and more conservative answers. Another triumph for behavioral science!
6
The research & analysis Thomas Edsall cites seems to exist in a vacuum that banishes political and social realities. People's attitudes aren't created in a vacuum. Attitudes are conditioned by power and social structure. The evolution of liberal and conservative attitudes depends much more on people's interests and, yes, their perception of those interests than it does on whether they are comfortable with and little more or less social democracy. For many decades the Republican Party has worked strategically to preserve the power of its clients and its own office-holders even in the face of demographic shifts and various crises---from civil rights through the climate crisis---that could diminish its sway. The Democratic Party tends to be less effective mobilizing power, perhaps because it is ambivalent about who it is serving (the Sanders analysis) and perhaps because it led us down a rabbit hole in Vietnam from which we may have still not emerged. Trump persists because he's able to mobilize the power of a diminishing minority that still has more economic heft than the miscellaneous minorities in the new Democratic majority, and he has amply repaid his backers in the American business community. Along the way he has mobilized attitudes--racist or xenophobic, or reactionary or fearful or threatened or nostalgic for the greater America, and/or combinations of these tropes--that enable him to pretend he has the right and power to rule by responding only to his base.
1
I am not sure I agree that people like myself are “ political hobbyists”. A minority of individuals are actively involved in politics if that means working full time for a liberal NGO, regularly turning out for demonstrations, or turning over much of their income to aid their favorite causes. The rest of us do what we can. I am not sure what else we should be expected to do. I value diversity, come from a diverse family, and financially support causes that matter to me. In daily life, I treat everyone respectfully. I am not Mother Theresa, but the great majority of people are not saints either. I just do what little I can to bring about a better and fairer society.
3
Wow, this is like a book outline condensed into an Oped.
Aside from the educational utility (an emphasis of liberals, I might add) in Edsall's advancing a number of psychological and sociological technical points about how Americans view themselves and "others," I do however think there is not much value in his highlighting implications of a survey in which people who "self-identified as either liberal, moderate or conservative" in what their views are on anything.
My position is that public self-identification as anything other than a human being is strategically unwise because labeling yourself impedes your ability to engage in issue-oriented promotion which is the only long-term solution to crossing over ideological divides.
However, in private, it's a a good idea to know one's identity biases -- you just don't this to become a major public thing (typically) because then people treat you as a member of such-and-such identity group and not a human being.
1
"Conservatives only act like liberals when they are asked to consider helping a person with internally controllable causes of need who has convincingly reformed."
Maybe.
There is overwhelming evidence that conservatives act like liberals when it benefits them (and mostly when it only benefits them).
1
Ms. Skitka's research findings that those facing economic hardship skew conservative explains a lot about why working class Americans keep "voting against their own economic self interests." If a clear view of those self interests is clouded by typical campaign rhetoric, it sounds like they are likely to vote conservative with their gut.
You learn something new every day.
What Edsall essentially highlights is much the result of the Sixties Generation which, while doing an admirable job in breaking down the relatively unthinking allegiance to family, religion, and government, not surprisingly did not do much to fulfill the human needs and desires those institutions had provided, a much harder job.
We have seen the results of that evolve over the decades, the latest manifestation being that politics, across the spectrum, is now largely serving the traditional function of religion, providing a community defined by unquestioning faith in received wisdom, the unbelievers not even worth interacting with lest one become morally tainted.
4
Really wonderful column. Thank you. As I read I was starting to think I might be able to resurrect the hope held by my younger self for education as the ultimate weapon against human intolerance and brutality until I remembered all the ivy league educated Trump supporters and Republican legislators, all the smart Silicon Valley billionaire narcissists, all the frat boy rapists, all the campus clubs stratified by race and class.
So many people are wealthy, educated, and intolerant. I look in vain for the stress that presses them toward tribalism, other than, perhaps, the greater diversity that might threaten their entitlement.
What worries me more than anything is the shakiness of liberal values, the ambivalence, thin commitment, and unwillingness to do the work of safeguarding or even implementing them.
I deeply fear the suggestion that we may need to embrace less liberal values in order to accommodate those who can't change fast enough, in order to save liberalism.
We don't have time. The planet is on fire; we will run out of clean water and habitable environment; we will have no wildlife; we will have 9 billion people to feed. And most people on earth do not have access to education or credible sources of truth.
5
Once again, Edsall supplies real data from the social sciences, not just opinion. No wonder conservatives are hostile to the social sciences. Education opens minds. However, if conservatives manage to divert Federal funding for religious schools at the expense of public schools, they can lock more children into “low-effort thinking.”
3
Thank you for an eye opening Op-Ed.
However this, "Conversely, they write, if the environment shifts back to a “threat-filled atmosphere,” then “positive selection for conservative orientations would reappear," can be engineered by certain segments of the media and politicians to keep the populace constantly on edge. The Fox empire and Trump supported by a prostrate GOP could be the perfect storm. They are also exacerbating the discontent of the middle and working class by making them poorer.
Maybe the silver lining will be if they push too hard to remove social safety nets the people might wake up from the false negative state and face a real existential crisis. This is just speculation on my part, maybe the experts can weigh in.
1
To be fair, Republican Senators are facing some difficult decisions:
America or Russia
Trump or country
McConnell or Constitution
Rich or all Americans
If it were only easier.
12
I expected the subtitle to also say voters were less interested in democracy, the rule of law, etc. It didn't. Later you say "ambivalent ... about the ground rules of democracy itself." That's not the same thing, and doesn't go far enough. In my view, for the Trump base, white dominance takes a priority over democracy. Their white dominance isn't derived from this tribalism. It seems to be the informing ethic behind their views. Trump's voters were relatively well off. They earned significantly more than Clinton voters. The notion that they were under economic pressure is not correct.
This certainly sums the frustration I have when confronting the views of Trump voters here: "low effort thinking promotes political conservatism." The more drunk people are, the more they behave like political conservatives. And, finally, something we already know: education is correlated with liberalism.
4
One thing we are all deeply passionate about is leaping to our feet at sporting events when the national anthem is played. Nothing quite like showing off our pretend embrace of American values by hugging the flag in this takes-no-effort display.
2
The notion that we need a “balance“ between nativist, isolationist sentiments and liberal inclusive diversity-embracing sentiments is a Wrong headed. We need to address the disorder of nativist isolationist sentiment - and it is a disorder, rooted in fear of change and things that are different from the usual. Yes there are Americans who naturally orient toward security, and sameness, but the expression of these motivational orientations as angry oppositional behavior can be moderated. We need to provide conservative, security oriented Americans with the fruits of diversity. We need them to see how their lives can be better in a more diverse world. Some mid western cities have seen a large influx of immigrants who join the community, help fuel the economy, and participate in civic society. These are the very type of cities that would typically the host to a large population of conservative security oriented individuals, but in the cities we see a majority who accept and embrace the new neighbors. Rather than embracing a need for “balance” between a psychological orientation which is consistent with emerging realities, and a psychological orientation that will inevitably be distressed by those realities, we need to think much harder about how to evolve the latter group to be happily in sync with today’s world.
2
At the risk of being a political hobbyist, I I think you are missing the point of this. He is reporting on findings of people’s psychology. It is much deeper than a philosophy of a world outlook.
As astute and valuable as this article is--and it is--the article and its sources seem to address a binary world that is in the process of collapsing. It seems that many Democrats see a country that's divided into Republican, Democrat, and For Crying Out Loud Get a Clue and Vote Blue, No Matter What Party You Think You Are. This mind-set denigrates and marginalizes those who take issue with the two biggest parties. The simple fact of closed primaries, which still exist in many states (including mine), is a great source of ire.
But as long as the Democratic Party proper fails to address the fact that it's abandoned the working and lower-middle class in favor of corporate values, it will not win those voters or lure the ones who've left the party back into the fold. Worse, it will lose more of them to disaffection. Those voters have a right to feel as they do, but that's not what anxious "liberal" Dems feel, and their hectoring about what others "must" do just exacerbates the problem. Until a strong third party emerges or the Democratic Party undergoes a correction to reclaim its pre-Clinton principles, it seems we have a destabilizing stalemate. But I could be all wrong.
2
Simple.
Reality TV addicts have elected one of their own.
These folks demographic are pervasive. Everyone has a fav reality show.
Mine are MSNBC and PBS and documentaries about history and archeology.
If I watched “Duck Dynasty or Ninja Warrior or the Housewives of wherever or football or baseball “instead ;.....do I care about a 300 year old experiment that first used genocide then slavery to control the wilderness discovered. ?!
And now !!!!!trump is using subtle changes in enforcement to have a resurgence of a new type of slave class ;and just look to his baby cages and Puerto Rican response for subtle genocide moving forward. Now he will destroy the congress folk he hates thanks to our Senators last night. Voting won’t work now.
1
History in the long, long term trends toward ever higher security, education, freedom and self-fulfillment. By every measure, people in the world today are better off. Empathy should rise.
It is also true that we do not take the long view. We dwell in our immediate circumstances, mistake our predilections for truths, and imagine that the state of things is shown in the latest news cycle.
We have it wrong. The present moment is tragic but it is not not the final act. Each side in the embarrassing impeachment trail invokes the Constitution. That good document is not being repealed, only tested on its ambiguities.
There is yet a principle greater than power games. Fear mongers and ignorance peddlers have always had their moments, but they never last. Take the long view, I say, and laugh at the political puppets and their Punch and Judy show. The show will end as it always does and history will roll on.
1
"The first faced time pressure or were forced to answer with distracting background noises, in environments “taxing, limiting or otherwise disengaging effortful, deliberative thought.”
AKA, the inner city. 
"The second group was asked the same questions with plenty of time to think and without noise or other distractions."
AKA the suburbs.
1
What I find missing here is any discussion of how the proximity of immigrants in his neighborhood affects the voter's attitude toward them. I have suspected for long that in some cases those who live far away from immigrants, who can afford to live in luxury approximating a "gated city," are very pro-immigration, while those whose income level does not allow that, and so must live close to the latest immigrants, have a different attitude based on a different experience. This strong possibility ought to be investigated rather than swept under the rug of "polite" discussion.
2
"I have suspected for long that in some cases those who live far away from immigrants, who can afford to live in luxury approximating a "gated city," are very pro-immigration.."
The reverse is true. The more mixed a community, the more accepting. That's why cities are liberal.
This is one of the reasons that truly universal healthcare is important, not only for the physical and mental health of the population, but for a important side-effect: the reduction of anxiety and the fear that someone else less worthy is getting something. This was an insight that the designers of Social Security understood.
Frank Lutz's semantic brilliance of turning social programs into "entitlements" played on those fears. "Entitlement" as an attitude a term of contempt.
Likewise, the use of the "r word" is often bringing out heavy artillery, where sympathetic words of advice would suffice.
The cardinal rule that's been lost is never humiliate anyone, even if their actions deserve criticism. Hillary Clinton's use of the term "deplorables," labeling people rather than behavior was truly one of the most incompetent acts of political suicide I've ever witnessed (Note: I voted for her in 2016, despite my belief that political dynasties are inherently damaging).
Likewise, think of what Donald Trump might have been like if he hadn't been humiliated by his father when young.
2
There is another group of liberals. Those who faced some external challenges to a middle class lifestyle and got back to the middle class after some struggles.
Because classes don't mix much, even some struggling, lower middle class voters imagine the lives of those a ring lower than themselves as less difficult than it is. If they volunteer at a charity, the recipients of the charity bare rarely ever going to say, "I am glad you lucked out but it is unreasonable for you to imagine that I can get free dental care in this county and without it my chances of many jobs aren't good."
People who have experienced racism may not understand the sexism faced some places by women in tech and science but, on the whole, they are more likely to get it than those who conformed naturally to whatever the average requirements for a position.
My class ignorance hit when I learned that schools are not funded equally across the states or even accross a county.
Jonathan Haidt has established himself as the go-to expert on explaining the political divide but his own views on race should be questioned:
"traits that led to Darwinian success in one of the many new niches and occupations of Holocene life — traits such as collectivism, clannishness, aggressiveness, docility, or the ability to delay gratification — are often seen as virtues or vices. ...the discovery that there might be ethnically-linked genetic variations in the ease with which people can acquire specific virtues is... going to be a "game changing" scientific event." (2009)
"If you really take gene-culture co-evolution seriously, then you've got to ask how the radically new selection pressures of life in cities and civilizations changed our genes over the last five to ten thousand years." (2013)
This shows once again that people, and societies, when stressed fall quickly into tribalism and Racism.
Our Planet is no under threat, not only from climate change but from the tribalism, nationalism and racism that is preventing effective, co-ordinated action. The problem is just not in the US.
It is time to for people to follow their intellect rather than allowing themselves to be driven by fears of 'others'.
If we don't start reacting to Planetary problems as One People, there will soon be No People.
2
I have posted many times on this forum and elsewhere the idea that we need to balance immigration against the need to maintain a civil society where caring, understanding and acceptance are central virtues. Each time I have been very careful and highly mindful that people can easily misinterpret these sentiments as being against people of different backgrounds, ethnicity and outlook. To be thoughtful of a nation changing too fast so that attitudes can't catch up with it is not being anti-immigrant. Instead, I hope it is being wise.
When people move from Pennsylvania to Texas, as thousands have done in recent decades, they often clash with local attitudes about many things, including how local governments should be run. The same applies when someone moves from Russia to Maryland. They don't necessarily understand our court system and, if they are adults, they haven't been fully trained in the freedoms guaranteed in our society. Multiply this lack of understanding by millions of people and "the way things are done" can get bent toward the way things were done over there.
Where we live in Montgomery County, Maryland, about 1/3 of the 1 million population is foreign born. What if it were 1/2 or even 2/3s? The point is that there is a limit and we need to have intelligent debates about where that limit is.
8
Mr. Edsall,
I disagree. At bottom, the greatest knock on Trump is his utter lack of the virtues of Character, honesty, integrity, honor - and that should be simply the best way to beat him. Very KISS, IMO.
However -
As I write this, Trump's Approval/Disapproval numbers remain at 43%/54% per Five Thirty Eight.
Does that mean any Democrat can beat him? If only.
CNN just reports in a new nationwide poll of Democrats/Dem-leaning Indies [I paraphrase/condense] a plurality prefer Bernie as their nominee, but believe that Biden/Budegieg/Klobuchar have a much better chance than The Bern of beating Trump. Moreover, enthusiasm for voting among Dems has dropped while that of Republicans remains very strong.
Will the Democrats wind up being Trump's most powerful tool? It sur looks like they're trying.
2
The nation has experienced decades of manipulation of public opinion against the government. Since the Reagan years, the nation was told over and over again that the government is the problem, not the solution. Republicans prepared the soil for someone like Trump, he is the right man, at the right time in the right place. The Democrats fell in step, Clinton continued the Reagan mantra and reformed welfare by doing nothing but cutting it down. And so it went, one little cut at the time to one group of the society, a little more a little later to another group and so it went for decades, the impoverishment of the working middle class, decades of stagnating wages did the rest.
3
I am liberal on most subjects, but I'm not a fan of immigration. People should work to improve the land they were born on, not try to escape to a foreign place where the work is maybe not so hard.
If Brits had not immigrated to the "New World", this land would probably still be dominated by Native Americans. No one can predict the course of "alternative histories", but I can certainly wish that there are still cultures that care deeply about this only Earth.
Capitalism is a philosophy of "extract and sell". People who are dedicated to the land they were born on do not think like that.
8
"Bar patrons reported more conservative attitudes as their level of alcohol intoxication increased. Because alcohol limits cognitive capacity and disrupts controlled responding, while leaving automatic thinking largely intact, these data are consistent with our claim that low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism."
Well there you have it, nicely tied up with a ribbon, particularly the last part of the last sentence. Low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism, indeed! Is there any better explanation for Trump and the GOP?
8
Excellent article. We might have avoided the Trump debacle and now be living as a healthier 21st century country if more Americans hadn't spent recent decades in the public education system that was once quite respectable, but deteriorated under constant attacks and defunding. Time for us to rebuild decent universal education, return civics, trade skills and personal finance training to the curriculum, while reversing church influences and politically-driven censorship on public curricula.
4
Or an example of In Vino Veritas, people losing inhibition to say what they really think. Sober people may tend to repeat what they perceive as fashionable to an audience or pollster, regardless of whether they really believe it.
6
Or, some voters are less interested in integrity when it suits them? Say, when the given politician punishes people such voters don’t like or who don’t look like them?
1
Well, seeing what "political science" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is up to is always kind of interesting, but it always seems to be happening in a kind of void (somewhat like "economics"). Why can't we, with no disrespect to Mr. Edsall's fine surveys, also have more essays in the Times surveying the political (in the broad sense) nature of American "literature" "history" psychology/communications/advertising" etc. We need more attachment.
1
Quite a bit more fiscal stimulus with Trump and his low interest rate policies are not causing unwanted inflation yet. For a lot of people a lower unemployment rate is a very big deal. Obama coulda shoulda been more stimulative with fiscal monetary policies. Apparently Obama was too cautious. Most people are looking for a job and reward politicians who are able to lower the unemployment rate.
@David - This is not true. In fact, Obama's fiscal policies were responsible for the lower unemployment rates that Trump enjoyed when he took office. Obama's GDP growth after the ruinous 2008 recession were around 2.2% while Trump grew it to 2.4% thanks to the corporate tax cuts that juiced the economy. Read the facts instead of believing Trump's hype and lies.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-to-debunk-trumps-false-claims-about-the-economy
5
The voters who claim to be Conservative & support President Trump will not be so thrilled in 2024 after he & the GOP proceeds to cut not only Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid as well as other social security safety programs. In Davos, Trump announced that he's open to cutting entitlement programs now that his economy is so strong (in truth the last quarter GDP only grew by 2.2% which is way below the 4% which was normal in the 1997-2006 era. We know that the GOP has been eager to cut the ACA, cut Medicaid expansion as well as privatize Social Security. The white working class who blame immigrants as threats to their economic security will be in for an eye opener when suddenly they realize they can no longer qualify for Social Security disability insurance, nor health insurance if they have a preexisting health condition as well as seeing their retirement cut by Trump's 2020 administration. There is no rhyme or reason for the Conservatives to pin such economic butchery on any other groups other than the President & his political party. Unfortunately, this type of despair & economic depravation will be the slap in the face needed for them to realize the enemy is not those outside our country wanting to destroy them, but rather the very politicians they entrusted as leaders to protect them & their security & well being.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/22/trump-appears-open-overhauling-social-security-medicare-break-2016-campaign/
5
Internal divisions in the Democratic Party are nothing new and have been addressed in very different ways in different eras. Yes - history sometimes is relevant.
During the Gilded Age, the Democrats absorbed the more left-leaning Populist Party and included a Populist plank or two in their platform. While the subsequent decision to give the presidential nomination to populist William Jennings Bryan did not result in victory during the 1896 campaign, Bryan nonetheless secured a seat a in the cabinet of President Woodrow Wilson some years later. Here, Democrats accepted the virtues of unity in spite of internal ideological differences.
In 1948, a compromise could not be reached and so the leftists walked out and united behind Henry Wallace of the Progressive Party. In spite of losing their votes. Democratic candidate Harry Truman won reelection, thus leaving the leftists out in the cold. On of Wallace's supporters, George McGovern, won the Democratic nomination in 1972 and went on to lose forty-nine of fifty states.
The success of the Democrats in remaining united for 2020 will in large part depend on whether that which unites them is greater than that which divides them. I am not confident that the necessary unity will remain.
3
The problem is not the American voter, the problem is the gerrymandered American system that gives too much weight to the views of a deeply conservative minority. Until the Senate is reformed there can be little hope for the real,progress that the majority does support.
7
Stenner's states that communities with certain characteristics thrive "in human evolution." I think I get what she is saying, but some could read this as suggesting that evolution, defined as genetic change over time in the structure of a population, acts at the level of the group. It does not. Evolution does not really act at all. It is simply change that results when individuals with some characteristics have better reproductive success than others, given their environment.
Selection, one of the mechanisms of evolution, does act, and it certainly can result in adaptive heterogeneity within a group. The fact that our species has two sexes is an example of adaptive heterogeneity. But the substate on which natural selection acts is the individual.
The evolved state of group heterogeneity( some people being liberal and others conservative, for example) is an unintended result of a situation in which diversity of opinion was of reproductive benefit to individual members of the group.
She probably knows all this but was just speaking loosely.
Lotsa big words, but Trump delivers the goods (tax cuts, deregulation) for his top-tier sponsors. The rest is window-dressing.
3
HA ! Then the deduction from that is ,(and I have suspected it for a long time), is Americans are just as grift prone , illicit, underhanded,venal, and immoral as the current President.
Good to know !
3
Conservatives are unable to put themselves in other people's shoes. They do not care about healthcare until they need it. They do not care about minorities because they are not the victims of racism. They do not care about those born poor because they had the luck to be born middle class. They do not care about immigrants because they had the luck to be born in this country.
7
Those on the Left want to include, and those on the Right want to exclude. But sometimes Rightists act charitably toward the less fortunate and Leftists shut out those they are afraid of. People are more complicated than general labels.
There is an important distinction between the two groups that is mentioned here and even tested: “low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism.” The Left thinks more than the Right. A lot of that has to do with religion, which encourages conservatives to believe, instead of think.
2
The Electoral College and the Senate system give undeserved power to the less intelligent regions of the country.
So the US is stumbling around now like a drunk frat boy at a party.
Doesn't matter that the frat is at an Ivy League school, either.
8
Much as I despise Trump, as far as I know USA always seeks quid pro quo for aid
4
@John Ayres Trump did it for personal gain. Not for the USA's gain.
1
January 22, 2020
Let me entertain you and all is great for Trump and America; so forget the impeach...and do nothing Dems and just what could be more entertaining that four more years and, hey getting to know me is getting to love me more and more. Why not the Ukraine is a great purchase since Greenland is off the charts. Voters know they are special for we are all chosen to live and die for DJT.
1
This is a sad indictment on the American population that many voters no longer care if their president is a crook or not.
We are a nation devolving into persistent tribalism.
6
A reading of the comments on articles about Michelle Obama at FoxNews.com suggests that many racists definitely think the election of President Obama " 'tipped the balance too far in favor of unconstrained diversity and complexity,' pushing the boundary beyond 'many people’s capacity to tolerate it.' "
4
To me, this all comes down to education and critical thinking skills. Educate people from a young age that what they are is a walking, talking ape and not some divine creature made by god, and that the world is populated with other walking, talking apes of different colors, and racism (and religion) would take a very hard—and much needed—hit.
3
It is unutterably sad to watch our Democracy collapse.
5
People need to open their eyes and see that our democracy is dying
5
Really good. We are not such a nice people. A country founded on genocide and slavery. We MIGHT change for the better. But not looking good.
3
The law professor needs to return to class as his logic and analysis are suspect. With this as direct evidence: “The failure of the American electorate to rise in opposition to President Trump — whose outrages are well-documented — suggests that voters are less tolerant, less empathetic and less insistent on integrity than many believe.” Such a curious conclusion with the evidence presented.
One could suggest other scenarios including the public's ability to discern the bias and witness the media-Democrat Party collusion as they have been speaking with one voice since the 2016 election, providing both a window into a lack of objective journalism and a meandering away from a two-party system into a shame-based secular socialist state by distorting truth to fit a choreographed gangplank to secular humanism.
4
Republican voters, you mean, are all those things, and they have been so for decades.
If you had asked the white guys who run the country if racism and sexism had subsided during the last generation, they would proudly have agreed that things are better now.
But that's because they are in charge.
Had we asked racial and religious minorities and women and queer people how things were going, we'd have heard a completely different take on American exceptionalism.
The problem is, the people in charge don't even recognize intolerance and hate.
3
I see no ambivalence.
By and large, Democrats support diversity. By and large Republicans support a racist political agenda.
By and large Democrats are tolerant towards religion. Republicans are typically Christian fundamentalists.
By and large Democrats have inclusive views on social issues. Republicans are intolerant of anyone or anything that does not confirm to their narrow "conservative" viewpoint.
America is not ambivalent - it is seriously divided.
2
Liberals are liberal until their liberalism affects them directly in a potentially negative way. It is why there are few homeless shelters and drug treatment centers located in residential liberal areas. If you want to watch liberals get intolerant, keep an eye on their reaction to the coronavirus story.
4
Except that the people in or near downtowns in every place I have lived are more tolerant and less Nimby than those in the areas less affected who live a bit farther out. The Nimbys often demonize,e.g. the homeless, based on their limited experience with them.
2
I will posit my own notion based upon "Low-Effort Thought Promoting Political Conservatism:" When one looks at the black unemployment rate twice that of the white, what accounts for the disparity. Which is a more effortless, guilt-free conclusion, individual basis or something else, perhaps historic racism and discrimination have some role. The former, you blame someone else, the latter, you blame yourself. The paradox here with the former is that generalizing over an entire group based upon race is racism. Skin color is the least scientific way of bifurcating people albeit the most thoughtless and effortless.
1
All these academics make the mistake of over simplifying people - into boxes, right wing and left wing, conservatives and liberals! The real fact is that most people embrace some values from each side of this artificial divide. I am very conservative on defence and law/order, but very liberal on homelessness, immigration and poverty.
By making such obviously artificial distinction in peoples preferences, or loyalties, academics are feeding us with spurious conclusions. In this Country too, they often come up with ridiculous solutions eg the acceptability of early release of prisoners.
There is no class of people who feel themselves more threatened. Short term funding, and an oversupply of higher educational providers, must create terrible job insecurity among 'college lecturers'. Academics, much more than business people, are driven to create a notoriety that can bring them notice, rather than the sack!
Unfortunately, the whole world is now facing its greatest ever challenges - overpopulation, irreversible damage to the Earth's biosphere (that is leading to Climate Change), water shortage and pollution.
We need solutions not sound bites!
1
The social science research mentioned in the article is fascinating and important. There are an infinite number of variables involved, and undiluted racism following 8 years of Obama is a huge factor in Trump's persistence. However, really-What is racism? I would call it the fear of the 'other'-of the outsider, the unknown. This fear escalates sharply when economic and social times are tough, as they have been for tens of millions of less educated, mostly white Americans. Hillary Clinton was dismissive of these voters, a fact which they clearly and accurately perceived. Why would they vote for her? They could feel in their bones her disrespect, even contempt. This was especially true of less educated white men. Although Trump has done less than nothing to enhance the lives of these people, he at least pretended to care about their plight. We liberal Democrats could not have fielded a worse candidate in 2016. In addition, many poor and minority voters stayed home, sensing no rapport with the candidate, who showed a profound charisma deficit. Finally, Trump has been shrewd enough to effectively engage the Lord of the Flies factor. It takes a significant amount of cognitive complexity, self control and tolerance for uncertainty to resist joining the mob when you are repeatedly told it is ok to do so.
1
If Trump followers drank less and tolerated real education in their schools and news we'd be a democracy again. Fat chance of that but we can dream can't we?
BOOZE "Because alcohol limits cognitive capacity and disrupts controlled responding, while leaving automatic thinking largely intact, these data are consistent with our claim that low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism."
POOR EDUCATION Diana Mutz, a professor of political science and communication at the University of Pennsylvania:
“Every study I’ve ever seen across the social sciences shows that education promotes less in-group favoritism and greater tolerance toward those unlike ourselves."
Americans have always been ignorant, narcissistic and low on social empathy.
“Ignorance is Bliss” should be on our money instead of “In God We Trust”.
Trump persists because the faux opposition party is even worse than Trump.
The DNC leadership continues to ignore the voice of the people and will continue to manipulate the selection of the DNC presidential candidate for 2020. They were convinced that Hillary Clinton could beat Trump in 2016; and they were wrong! They are convinced that Joe Biden can beat Trump in 2020, and they will be wrong again! The voters want real change, and Bernie Sanders offers real change a la FDR size programs after the depression to level the playing field and restore true democracy that offers equal justice and opportunity to everyone.
No one else in either party offers the leadership to do that.
If the Democratic Party (which is not democratic at all) ignores the voice of the people this time and throws Bernie under the bus again at the national convention - it will require a massive write-in campaign by his supporters. Biden will not beat Trump.
Interesting how the Democratic contenders attacked Trump's corruption but ignored Biden's.
They’re trying to impeach Trump for being a threat to the Constitution, then pass the Patriot Act extension to give Trump access to everyone's communications.
They attack Trump for calling out mainstream media as fake news, but they say nothing when the same media sidelines Bernie Sanders.
4
Trump persists because he was handed an election by the electoral college and he's serving out his term in a hyper-partisan country that gives unyielding support based on party affiliation. It has nothing to do with biological underpinnings of xenophobia or racism, which shouldn't matter in a democracy where we must assume humans are somehow unique from other animals. If you want to base elections and polices on wherever biological determinism takes us, why even bother with democracy? Just give the people troughs.
With Trump what you see is what you get. He wears his obvious faults on his sleeve. There is no Clintonian triangulation, no Obama evolving saying one thing to get elected then turning 180 degrees. No carefully crafted speeches where every word is parsed by PR experts.
In this sense Trump is of the the most honest politician today. He has worked for and achieved the precise issues he campaigned on. Best of all he's confounded Democrats in every attempt to smear him while bringing out the worst inclinations in Democrats... unlike the previous President who mouthed Christian values in public to privately mock mock them as Bitter Clingers,to publicly be tough on Putin and in private tell him" we'll be more accommodating after election". I'll take a flawed Trump anytime over the slick phoney political calculator.
4
Great article! It's been obvious for a long time that conservative thought is less evolved than that of liberals. The people who are happiest around the world live in countries where people help people and unfettered greed is discouraged--the exact opposite of the US.
3
So it’s been revealed that we as a nation have even less character, integrity, morals and ethics than we thought? Wonderful. What could go wrong from here?
3
I think there is an intelligence, ethical brain drain that began with the US voter's and the complacency of the mid to late 80's. As a whole the country began to accept the juvenile behavior displayed in the media on shows such as Jerry Springer and sub-mature journalists like Geraldo Rivera, By the start of the early 90's the historian and WWII veteran Paul Fussel had published "Bad: The Dumbing of America" showing (warning?) readers how Americans were less concerned with the image go the country than the country itself. We had begun to embrace window dressing over substance.
So here we are, 30+ years later. What have the voters brought us? President that does not read. A pious Vice-president who has no qualms about the perpetual lying of the administration he is a part of or doing so on its behalf. A Senate leader that consistently puts personal and party interests above his oath of office to uphold the law and Constitution of this country.
There have been so many warning signs down the years but they have collectively ignored and so we now have the government we earned.
1
I think a lot of this is media created conflict, and a lot of this is a fight for political power. But power corrupts.
I'm against the concept of a nation state philosophically so I'm pretty out there in many respects that transcend liberal and conservative labels but I have no problems with someone arguing with me about the need for border control and I can easily empathise with their position without calling them racist (unless they are being racist).
I think the situation is very complex but I think there's a plurality of the US that obviously is okay with the diversity and the mess that comes with it.
Look at our vibrant cities.
The rural areas and people aren't all that parochial. There are liberals there but they're smaller in numbers same as conservatives in cities. The rural areas aren't really where the diversity is happening yet they're the ones complaining loudly about it. So these people are all reacting to the perceived news (including myself). So the media landscape informs our thinking and now we have two landscapes to mirror our political parties. Self created tribalism at its best.
1
Tom Edsall and Linda Greenhouse are national treasures.
1
I read through this impatiently. But I’m glad I read it.
The reason for my impatience is it’s hard for me to see how we can meaningfully study this issue when there does not seem to be a major political party in America that seriously factors in the needs of lower middle and middle class Americans across the country when setting trade and immigration policy.
You’d think it would be the job of Ds to insist that, in addition to looking at the broad benefits from more open trade and immigration policies, we also make sure that policy does not unduly bid down wages and working conditions for people already here and that retraining and wage insurance are available to help people hurt by more open trade.
I’ve read that studies show immigration policy has not bid down wages, but that seems sufficiently counterintuitive that I’d like to know how terms were defined and how the studies were done.
But especially towards the end, this article may supply an answer as to why more balanced rational non-racist policies are seemingly not on offer.
4
What is the common concern of all human beings? What makes religion so prevalent? What makes people think that there must be ways to influence the insensible forces which offer both benefits and losses, and which can defy predictability?
Uncertainty.
Demagogues like Trump, and he is a demagogue, offer certainty. They can fix it if the people give them unconditional support, unlimited authority. Religions offer the secrets from the supernatural manipulators of nature. Will power or magical thinking. Believe it to be so and it will be so.
Natural forces are immutable, unchanging since the Big Bang over 14 billion years ago. All of man’s adaptions to the challenges faced from nature and man have been based upon observation and testing what explanation we might have made. Only in our imaginations have we ever known certainties, or in our religions.
Trump mesmerizes his supporters and they gladly suspend their disbelief and cheer him on. They live in a dream state, not in the real world. It provides them with a sense o certainty.
1
Re” Voters are less tolerant, less empathetic and less interested in integrity than many political analysts thought.”
Analysts, by nature, use analysis. The general population has moved away from thoughtful engagement. It hurts the brain more than playing with a cell phone or blithely blaming others for ones disappointments in life.
2
Almost of these studies are self-reinforcing and limited to outdated concepts of human social evolution.
The most important consideration about perceived "threats" and support for "liberalism" and "conservatism" is missing from most of these authors:
Where are the "perceived" threats originating?
From people's actual first hand experiences, or from the messages from "authorities" in power, whose primary goal is their own status and job security?
5
It's economics. Ensure a decent quality of life for everyone and you'll see tolerance and empathy bloom. In a zero-sum society, all outsiders are potential threats. Without a feeling of progress or gain, measured by most people in terms of material wealth or professional respect, old values and cultural norms and even your own cultural and racial background are what you can claim as your own.
4
Why does Trump persist?
He has a base of voting support that can soothe his wounds and weaponize the fear he wields.
He has immense power from his office and the federal bureaucracy he commands.
He has millions of dollars in funds and investments that provide financial security for his family and for his forays into the world to gain more power and money.
He has his own television network.
His opponents are constrained by various altruistic or egalitarian scruples, the sort of he has none.
Because he is the first of his kind, we have been slow to recognize the threat he poses to our democracy.
And so he has taken advantage wherever he could of his own novelty and unique amoral opportunity.
4
What I've noticed in reading comments from liberals and so-called "conservatives" (they aren't really conservative; they're Republican tribalists motivated more by emotion than by reason) is that Republicans tend to believe things that no real cognitive effort would support. They often cite the economy, low unemployment and the stock market as justification for their support of Trump. But if these were really primary reasons to vote for a president, these people would be Democrats.
The unemployment rate is the lowest in 50 years, but it reached this point over 50 years by going up 6.2% under Republican presidents and down 6.2% under Democratic presidents. Similarly, GDP growth has been 138% better under Democratic presidents. Average monthly job creation has been 80% better under Democratic presidents. These facts come from the full government data sets, back to 1930 for GDP and back to 1939 for job creation.
Looking back over the last 15 administrations, including Trump's, Clinton and Obama rank first and second, respectively, for annualized gains in the S&P 500. Trump ranks third. Through 1/10/2020 the stock market (S&P 90, then S&P 500 from 3/4/1957) has gone up 8,381% under Democratic presidents vs. a rise of only 51% under Republican presidents. All of these things are blowouts for Democratic administrations, hardly a sound reason to vote for Trump or any Republican president.
12
Yes, the politics are not relying upon reason and empirically supported hypotheses but narratives that resonate with emotions and concerns based upon uncertainties.
2
Homo Sapiens are the result of an evolutionary process that was shaped in no small part as a collective organism. We have survived and thrived as a collective organism with complex adaptations to social organization. Our species is uniquely adoptable to all sorts of conditions and to threats.
Is it not possible, even likely that a variety of individual cognitive models abeted by complex communication result in a broader spectrum of responses to the requirements of the time and moment?
In other words given the threat or opportunity at hand a number of options are perceived and arguments presented.
These are then argued a a course of action chosen for the collective.
The tension to embrace or reject change may be hardwired
2
Edsall quotes one Karen Stenner approvingly. "At this juncture, she argued, we need to tinker with that balance and get it right for everyone. So there’s the paradox of our times: it is likely that rather less liberal democracy will ultimately make liberal democracy more secure. At this juncture, she argued, we need to tinker with that balance and get it right for everyone. So there’s the paradox of our times: it is likely that rather less liberal democracy will ultimately make liberal democracy more secure." It's all the 'liberals' fault.
1
For years the overlords have spewed the propaganda that the people want stability. They do not. The truth is the people want chaos. It's way less boring.
Hard working honest Americans. The press and the politicians say it all the time. It's just not real.
2
Social insularity, racial (i.e. white based) anxiety of privilege
loss, minimal educational attainment, absence of
intellectual curiosity and distrust of critical thinking, comfort found in internalizing soothing bromides that promote unlimited consumption as an expression of citizenship and source of personal happiness, fear of the Other - religious, ethnic, racial, or simply nonconformist in nature- our society has tens of millions of voters with these deeply anchored qualities. We always have had and will continue to have such people.
They are now very well organized and mobilized thanks to talk radio, social media, f-x and sinclair networks, and the manipulative disinformation campaigns they promote which accelerate the contagious spread of paranoia, ignorant rage,
or deep cynicism about overcoming
personal powerlessness with communal organizing and action.
The trump phenomenon feeds off all this and thrives in
the absence of a coherent opposition that understands how to short circuit all of his idiocies, can talk to people
in their own language, and is intent on organizing everyone outside the cult en masse as a single powerful coalition united around a few essential principles.
This, however, will not happen until the many very bad things that are currently under the radar, or plainly in sight but willfully ignored, destabilize our assumptions about how or whether to act and what to do.
Which is when we'll really need wise leadership.
3
The immigration issue can be addressed from its effects on wages or jobs or education or the social safety net or etc. When immigrants are claimed to be rapists and murderers, this is racism, pure and simple. Anyone who supports the person or group making this claim supports racism. One might support the person or group for other reasons but this still supports racism. If everyone had voted for George Wallace because they liked his economics where would that have placed racism in our society?
1
Wages are rising now very rapidly for lower income groups. The deregulation is working. The economy is strong and all boats rising.
Socialism has an ugly history.
Please study Hugo Chavez’ policies and see the similarity to Warren and Sanders.
5
@Joe yoh
Thanks for scare tactics. Nobody is proposing anything like the socialism that is currently practiced in Venezuela.
This is a popular conservative tactic. Take something at its absolute worst and use it as a general example about a given topic.
Notice he didn't bring up Sweden, Norway, Denmark, or Finland. Countries where citizens have reached a consensus to pay higher taxes so that all their citizens could enjoy a higher quality of education, healthcare, maternity leave, child care, job training etc. Instead of a system where only those who can afford it get opportunities in life.
1
Perhaps the most important, incisive, revelatory piece on politics I have ever read — and I've been in and around politics for 50 years.
This statement by Stenner makes a very interesting point.
"Among liberals, Stenner argued, the greatest ambivalence “attaches to immigration issues,” and that ambivalence is only worsened by the unwillingness of liberals to accept an open debate in which immigration opponents can “express their fears and concerns, without being called racists.”
What Stenner is actually suggesting here is that the opposition of "liberals" to "too much immigration" is based on their unwillingness to confront and oppose racism.
It is my experience that non-racist White Americans, even those who consider themselves to be liberals, do not want to be confronted and identified as being opposed to white racism and white nationalism.
White Americans who avoid and ignore the problem of racism in the USA are perpetrators of white racism.
Many religious conservatives staunchly believe that the world was created in 6 days around October 29th, 4004BC. Therefore thinking is not high on their list of accomplishments.
Many of Trump's other conservative supporters truly believe that Reality TV is real - as in unscripted real. So not much thought process there either.
All the others fall into those great unthinkers who thrive on dogma: Their parents voted Republican and so will they till they die. No thought needed at all.
There ain't no great mystery in all this. Except for the blind, blissful ignorance required to live in a fantasy, fact-free world devoid of learning, well, anything at all really - just like Trump.
That's why he persists.
2
There are two possible consequences of the Senate trial, if the trial is a complete sham. One, voters who don't care one way or the other, will see this as just another cat fight between parties, or two, voters will be appalled by McConnell's machinations and raise the rafters to have a proper trial. My money's on the former. Trump has millions of ardent admirers who reject any allegations against him as, in Trump's words, "a witch hunt" and he enjoys McConnell and company having his back. I am hoping that there are enough voters who are exhausted by this corrupt presidency and will make it their business to vote in 2020. Equally important is the need to break the grip on the Senate McConnell holds, by unseating him swinging the control of the Senate to the Democrats.
1
Beautiful ending question. Exactly what is it that binds the Democrats? The formal party and politicians have jobs and power and prospects. But beyond that, all I see is animus to Trump. No candidate commands a majority, perhaps Bernic can replicate his near-win to a win. But the country isn't going for a full-fledged socialist model. Not enough money to support those we have, opening to the world is folly.
4
A simple verification to perform as to the so-called evolutionary basis claimed by these scientists would have been to look at Europe. If the current situation in America is natural to all human societies, why don’t we see homelessness nearly to the same pathological and tragic extent whenever traveling in Europe? Maybe another angle to investigate would have been how the highly biased and selective investigations propagated by Fox News is permeating everybody’s views.
2
The word "Persists" belongs to Warren... whatever it is that Trump is doing deserves a much less charitable word.
2
I wish more articles analyzing the psyche of the Trump supporter would delve into the effect of Fox News. I know it's been covered but not enough.
So many of us have parents and grandparents who always preached empathy, decency, modesty, dignity, integrity and charity...before turning a blind eye to all of that to support Trump.
These people were not "bad," they were not pretending to believe in these things.
What they are now is BLOODY BRAINWASHED.
80% of their information comes from Fox News, where no objective context or analysis is provided. Half the time, stories that cast the president in an unflattering light never reach their ears. Instead they are incessantly bombarded with the president's "achievements," the democrats' collective pettiness and (of course) the danger across the border.
Yes, Fox is not alone, there are countless online conservative propaganda machines. But for the vast majority of Trump's older supporters Fox News is IT. They're not online, they park themselves in front of the TV for hours and take it all in.
When I spend a couple of days with my grandparents I feel like I'm going crazy because some of Fox's propaganda can be very convincing. I can only imagine my perspective if it was my sole source of news for the last 10-20 years.
Fox News is a bigger part of the problem than anyone will admit, it has poisoned the minds of a generation.
6
Trump persists because he taps into the private self that we citizens see in the bathroom mirror, but hide from our friends and the public at large.
The most nakedly transactional political in our lifetimes can be expected to double down in the current election cycle. He will promote tax cuts, stock market juicing, government spending, welfare fear/loathing, immigrant suspicion, trade warring, isolationism, ... It will be difficult for any Democrat short of Bernie Sanders to keep his or her head under this type of assault.
At some Med Schools, students are being taught they are "bad" if they inquire into race of their patients.
This teaching is promulgated by those who do NOT practice medicine and want to appear "liberal."
This, to me, is the pinnacle of prejudice.
Of course they have to inquire; predispositions, disease probability, social determinants of health, etc
Harm in the name of Neo-liberalism is a new macroaggression and the ill effects will continue throughout these young folks' careers.
(Yes, I'm a practicing physician.)
8
I had been baffled by Trump's broad appeal but I've observed a common thread among Trump supporters I've conversed with. To a person, each of them expresses the same xenophobia and bigotry espoused by Trump. I have heard them say "the country doesn't need any more third world immigrants" and "people of color think we owe them the world because their ancestors were slaves." The terms used by Edsall (tolerant, empathetic, integrity) are all glaringly absent in the president and many of his admirers.
2
Finding the right balance, Stenner said, “is vital to both societal cohesion and human flourishing.” But, she warned, “we may have tipped the balance too far in favor of unconstrained diversity and complexity,” pushing the boundary beyond “many people’s capacity to tolerate it.”
Right on. In this scenario, the left, in trying to mainstream issues that many found too extreme, left, ahem, the left unmoored.
Two personal “ say what?” moments came when I realized a few hundred people had found a New York State road end that met the Canadian border, and they could just walk across it. That led to empathy for you, with tens of thousands doing the same thing.
The second was the bathroom debate. Somewhere out in the future, who gets to use which bathroom, and what signs should be on bathrooms will be “solved”. But not by me. My liberal views felt unmoored by the speed expected by proponents to adopt the issues.
My Overton Window, defined as ” pushing the boundary beyond “many people’s capacity to tolerate it.” got whacked.
I agree with the author’s premise that liberalism will be advanced best by moving back toward the middle.
4
re: less interested in integrity than many political analysts thought.
Voters do know that all politicians lie more or less (politics is a dirty business) and that lies are required to get worthwhile things through
Politifact, a Pulitzer Prize winning fact checking organization, selected this as the Lie of the Year in 2013
"If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold."
President Obama Weekly Address
The end justifies the means.
As to Trump, the left of center VOX , reports
"Trump’s new trade deal is better for workers than NAFTA was"
"American auto companies that assemble their cars in Mexico would also have to use more US-made car parts to avoid tariffs, which would help US factory workers. And about 40 percent of those cars would have to be made by workers earning at least $16 an hour — three times more than Mexico’s minimum wage for an entire work day."
Until the Democrats change their position on outsourcing, trade and immigration, voters will vote for those who butter their bread
4
Outside of the echo chambers of the coasts, there is no actual grounds for impeachment.
Many constitutional scholars agree but you won’t read about them in certain circles.
5
What about the echoe chambers of the Fox 'News' watchers?
Maybe men are less tolerant, less empathetic, less interested in integrity but not women. Women will vote in 2020 for Democrats who care about fairness like they did in 2018.
Insightful article, but one aspect of why Trump persists is that conservatives tend to be very stubborn. I know, I was a Republican for most of my life. Conservatives do not easily admit they are wrong, even when the evidence is smacking them in the face! I have several family and a couple of friends that though they have not admitted voting for Trump, did and still support him. They are nice people, but they are the types that loathe admitting they are wrong. They would continue to support Trump unless he has an abortion....yep, that would do it!
It’s a vicious cycle. Right wingers create economic scarcity and stress the afflicts the masses. The masses in turn become more tribal and re-elect right-wingers. Repeat.
1
Global warming is changing our planet and can wreck much of the human works of two centuries and create great migrations of desperate people. Trump and his Republican supporters are still calling it a bogus claim by people trying to disrupt the world with the help of the fake news media.
How can so many think in such an inane manner?
This article has a glaring hole: The willingness of conservatives to get in line behind complete falsehoods. They repeat misinformation, propaganda, and conspiracy theories all day long without skipping a beat and rarely being called out by other conservatives. On the liberal side I see a complete rejection of non-fact based rhetoric. This is a huge contrast and is a key factor enabling the destruction to our representative republic.
1
Once the complicit Republican Senate affirms that Trump has done nothing wrong, they will effectively be unleashing stage 4 Trumpism on the country.
All guard rails will be removed and Trump will “be able to do whatever I want”.
If you thought the narcissistic madman was overboard before, you haven’t seen anything yet.
Republicans have decided to support Trump over the Constitution.
2
Why does Trump persist? Why does he continue to exist or be prolonged; or continue firmly or obstinately in an opinion or a course of action in spite of difficulty, opposition, or failure?
The answer in the first part is his tenure in office is due to his supporters willingness to accept behavior that they have individually and collectively decried for a lifetime. It is due to their abandonment of their long held supposed belief in probity, in truth, in actual conservatism. In other words, they called themselves conservatives but they abandoned principle in a heartbeat. Fiscal conservatism, don't make me laugh, trillion dollar deficits to finance idiotic tax cuts. Environmental conservation? Protection of commonly held assets otherwise known as infrastructure? Adherence to law?
The answer in the second part is that like every aspect of Trump's life, failure is defined by him. Success is defined by him. Since he is completely detached from reality and truth he simply lies, then see the answer to the first part above. Trump stumbles from one self created crisis to another, then he reverses course and declares a great victory. He has persisted in nothing other than executive time, resort time, and campaign rallies where he struts, preens, and screams invective against his enemies.
In the near term liberals have shown constancy, conservatives not so much.
1
Despite the tensions and ambivalences that Edsall describes among Democrats, they did find common ground in 2018 when they flipped 40 Republican districts—a stunning accomplishment by any measure.
They did so by focusing on bread-and-butter issues such as jobs, income gap, health care and Social Security, while avoiding divisive cultural issues such as immigration, race and gender.
Democrats can find common ground again in 2020 by focusing on Donald Trump and his threat to our democracy, while avoiding those same divisive cultural issues.
Operationally, Democrats can come together for a common goal, even when they are far apart ideologically. If they hope to win in 2020, they must keep that premise, and the success of 2018, firmly in mind.
4
As always, I appreciate Thomas Edsall's careful work and the reporting and analysis of critical issues facing our people and nation. There are even deeper realities, however, in the history, behavior and evolution of Homo Sapiens(?). The comments demonstrate the vast range of beliefs and perspectives on the nature of reality and 'truth', within our own society, to say nothing of the others that have preceded and surround us.
I agree with comments that point out the roots of the inequality that is tearing our un-united country and people apart. The 1619 Project and reports are crucial to understanding not only where we have been and are, but also where we are heading, and why. 'Conservative' and 'Liberal', 'Democrat' and 'Republican', serve as names for the 'fighting teams' competing for power. Citizen's United makes clear the degree that wealth has legitimized and concentrated power in fewer and fewer hands. Native Americans and Afro-Americans are still prevented from being full partners and participants in the 'American Dream'. The vote is being manipulated. The three 'co-equal' branches of Government are no longer co-equal, but are co-opted by wealth and power.
As the planetary environment is steadily being destroyed by human behavior, we have very little time to recover a way to conserve what is healthy and good (for all), and what must be repaired to survive. The time and way depend on truth, reality and making the correct decisions and sacrifices.
2
The results of these surveys have to be put into the context of the the right wing media alternate universe. The surveys seem to assume that all American are receiving the same facts and that these facts are used by them to develop their views. Of course that is not a description of America. The right wing media is creating what goes for facts and repeating them over and over to the point that large number of people believe these facts to be true although they are not. That is why Trump persists and almost the entire Republican Party backs him. Trump launched his recent political career on such a falsehood, specifically that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. And his entire presidency rests on such falsehoods.
5
Mr. Stenner, "a political psychologist and behavioral economist", who you quote, talks of human evolution. I have a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology and question his statement on human communities which he states "tend to thrive and prosper in human evolution." That's sentence would be what we call "group selection," in evolutionary ideas. But it is hard to prove that can happen and violates solid, mathematical evolutionary facts. Evolution selects individuals (actually their genes) and if their gene combinations "allow" them to survive they thrive and produce more children. Thus their genes then become more common and the frequency of those genes in the population become more common.
Thus Trumps self-centered nature, his need for power and full control spread. (yes, the environment did play some role in the expression of behavior in Trump also; but the genes predisposed. His parents ignored him). Power hungry people galore anywhere will become tyrants if possible. People will help others particularly if they are relatives and if they "reciprocate" in the altruistic sense.
But to imply that racism and and and "bad" attitudes toward immigrants and and homeless people will in general trigger disgust in most people is not supported by evolutionary data or theory or facts.Having genes which would embrace groups of people in those categories are likely to be selected against in most communities unless they were direct relatives. Other statements by Stenner could be challenged.
1
In the most recent Sunday Times magazine, the article about Rudy Giuliani's behavior asked the question: Has Rudy changed, or has America changed?
My answer: neither has changed. We have simply learned more about America's regressive side than we previously knew.
Thomas Edsall in this column tells us exactly what it is we now understand about America that was always there but was below the surface because it was socially unacceptable.
2
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. The minute hobbyist liberals in a wealthy community are confronted with a proposal to change zoning laws to make housing more affordable, for example, their tune changes in a flash. As long as it doesn't affect them, they're accepting, understanding, etc, but the minute it might actually impact them, they get pretty conservative.
6
Excellent read as always Mr. Edsall.
While I agree with almost all of the conclusions of the socio/psychological/economic/biological academics quoted, I must disagree with Hersh. We educated liberals are not "hobbyists". I would much rather be writing about music, science, or even audio technology at the moment. I work in the technology industry in fact and would be much better off personally to be using this time for researching cloud technology or 5G networks or some IT leadership course. Instead, I write almost daily in the NYT comments section because I believe our country, and the world at large is in great danger because of Trump and more importantly, because of the GOP's lack of intellectual honesty.
It takes the educated to understand and write about these very subjects. Yes, that might be because we the "luxury" to. It still makes those contributions no less important. There are a few on the left, that still think that being some kind of a poor martyr is a liberal requirement...Enough of that already.
4
Not to attack you (I’m guilty as well) but writing comments in the NYTimes is much easier than registering voters, organizing a protest, or even writing / calling your representatives. Which I think is Hersh’s point.
2
@randomxyz
So those are the only valid means of addressing issues? I happen to think that spreading knowledge is about the most contribution one can make.
Judgemental much? That was MY point...
@randomxyz
So those are the only valid means of addressing issues? I happen to think that spreading knowledge is about the most important contribution one can make.
Judgemental much? That was MY point...
People who support Trump value the condition of their own situation more than the integrity of those in power. Also, most Americans see politicians of both parties as self serving and out of touch. Is that evil? No, it is just really human nature. In a perfect world people world people would value both. The truth is at any level of society people really do care about themselves first. It is not that people don't want the best for others, but their reality is based on their own personal experience and what makes that better or worse. like a strong economy. That is what is keeping Trump in office. Now, are you so liberal that you hope the economy tanks to get rid of Trump? You know all those people that are at the bottom of society liberals supposedly care about so much. If that happens those will have it 10x worse, but again people understand life from their viewpoint and how it affects them. Being liberal is a privilege of the wealthy or the extremely poor. the wealthy have enough wealth to pay additional taxes and enjoy the finer things in life. It doesn't affect them. The poor need government programs to survive and are fairly or unfairly viewed in question because of it. The majority of Americans believe in individual responsibility more than the concept of it takes a village. Liberal policies do nothing for the middle class. This is why Trump endures, will probably be aquitted and will probably win another election.
4
I am not at all surprised to read the following quote: “Every study I’ve ever seen across the social sciences shows that education promotes less in-group favoritism and greater tolerance toward those unlike ourselves,” she continued. “In panel studies that track the same people over time, as people gain advanced levels of education, they become more tolerant and favorable toward liberal democratic norms.”
This may explain why the public school system is generally lacking and particularly so in republican controlled states.
5
"Among liberals the greatest ambivalence 'attaches to immigration issues,' and that ambivalence is only worsened by the unwillingness of liberals to accept an open debate in which immigration opponents can 'express their fears and concerns, without being called racists.'"
"an open debate"? While main stream media columnist, like Edsall, omit illegal employers (like Trump) from discussion on immigration, who in their right mind can continue to kid themselves into thinking that we are having an 'open debate' on immigration? There can be no 'open debate' on immigration while the media omits employers from the discussion.
Voters have a choice. You can have Democratic open borders without the racism, xenophobia and cruelty. Or you can have Republican open borders with all of the above. But either way, your going to get open boarders, because that is what the wealthy ruling elite want. They control the GOP completely, and the Democrats partially - and until we change that, nothing else is going to change.
5
Excellent column.
But it's entirely ethnocentric in the sense that it reflects, without saying so, an exclusively American mentality -- in particular America's distinctive emphasis on up-by-your-bootstraps individualism.
Do the various studies cited in the column apply as well to, say, European countries with their more egalitarian attitudes? I have to wonder, and would love to see a response from some European social scientist.
4
What a depressing study. The net of it is there is a still a large group of people in our country that is ready to hate people they don't even know and if we don't want the system to completely collapse then we have to accommodate their hatred. What a sad state our country is in.
5
Karen Stenner paraphrasing white men: Agh! Black and brown people are here! Women too! I’m not prejudiced, but the complexity of having them around is too much for me to tolerate!
I can’t tell if Stenner meant this as a parody of white men or a whitewash of patriarchal white supremacy. But I do know that such a mindset has nothing to do with “societal cohesion and human flourishing.”
4
And don’t forget that most Americans are practically illiterate, disinterested in science and the world around them, famously xenophobic, and deeply enthralled with either vapid pop consumer culture or exploitive televangelism based on fairy tales designed for feeble minds.
13
Other than that, it’s great!
3
Appreciate the links to social science research on liberalism and conservatism, tribalism and empathy, bias and interest, context and compassion.
Particularly recommended: Stanford University social psychologist Jennifer L. Eberhardt's 'Biased: uncovering the hidden prejudice that shapes what we see, think, and do' (Viking, 2019). ISBN 9780735224933
3
Disinformation media has a divisive, brainwashing effect that continues to harm our nation. How many reading this have lost a friend or family member to the nonsense and divisive hatred pushed by talk radio or FOX TV? How many reading this have seen decent people transformed into raving and increasingly angry, bigoted, paranoid, hyper-nationalist fanatics? I certainly know a few. It didn't start with Trump, though his rise is a product of it and he continues to make it far worse.
https://almarkowitz.blogspot.com/2019/09/remembering-that-blue-marble-moment.html
6
How do you lose someone to a TV show? Since study after study has shown watching media has little effect, I suspect the person has not changed. He or she was always that way.
1
as many basketball coach dilemma in the 60's and integration how many black players to play 2 at home and 3 away?
And politicians are less patriotic.
"Patriotism is for Losers: How I Cashed in on the Truth"
by
John Bolton
His book deserves to tank.
2
Notice that Trump does not alienate large swaths of voters. Not *directly* anyway.
Consider Romney's "47 percent" comment. That alienated half the electorate. He wound up losing.
Consider HRC. Her "deplorables" comment alienated half the electorate. She wound up losing. She made the comment at a public campaign fundraising event.
Consider Warren saying she wants to take away private (including employer-based) health insurance. That is a direct assault on most Americans. She raised her hand to do this at a nationally televised debate.
During the 2016 campaign, Trump said blacks are in terrible shape and couldn't do worse with him. But, for example, he didn't directly call them deplorables and say they should be deported. Trump has treated Hispanics terribly: migrants and children at the border in cages, the Dreamers and Puerto Rico. But migrants are not US citizens, the Dreamers are a small cohort and Puerto Rico is, well, far away. And Trump never directly called Hispanics deplorables who should all be deported. They are left to *infer* what he really thinks from his actions.
There is a method to Trump's madness. And Democrats cannot say stupid things and make stupid mistakes that will ruthlessly be used against them.
8
@Blue Moon
I disagree. Trump says stupid stuff all of the time, but his supporters are willing to forgive his sins no matter what!
@Kara
Republicans and their base are pretty monolithic. Trump supporters are a solid bloc (regardless of all their individual reasons for supporting Trump). The Democratic base is like herding cats. Democratic candidates cannot behave the way Trump does or their supporters will abandon them in large numbers.
The conservative turn by unschooled white America stems from a perfect storm of factors. It was never the intention of America’s owners to destroy this segment of the polity. But their self-interested policies (unlimited immigration to provide cheap labor; mass incarceration of uneducated whites as well as blacks; outsourcing of manufacturing) made it inevitable. However the owner’s control of the media made it easy for them to shift blame for the annihilation of the white working class on liberal policies of openness, tolerance and integration. Trump is merely the result.
I have to believe that he has so violated the norms of America that he will not win again in 2020. In 2016 less than 40,000 votes out of over 130 million would have needed to change for a different result.
The Democrats do not focus enough on Trump’s least attractive trait. Never mind that his only talent is con man, that otherwise he is profoundly ignorant and stupid, having lost half of daddy’s money over 45 years of wheeling and dealing.
Donald Trump is cruel. Most Americans are not and most Americans do not like cruelty. Hammer the point home and the Democratic candidate will be home free.
Dan Kravitz
4
Traveling abroad we usually get an ear full from people, about America! This began earnestly with George W Bush invasion of Iraq. Abroad, people would tell us America is an imperialist bent on expanding its powers. That Americans are stupid foolish with low IQ, based on American tourist behavior. We were asked by school students are American children really stupid? Do they only care about athletics? Do they not know geography or history? Are they really poor in math and science? In general knowledge? We would shrug. Perhaps people abroad recognized America much better than Americans themselves, who seem to largely lack self awareness. It’s perhaps the Abrahamic aspect a very narrow view of human life dignity respect for life. which religion tells you that a father would prefer one child over another punish one reward another. Which religion tells you your salvation is so conditional you have to go through a messiah. These religions profess commandments, Americans repeatedly defy those. trump, go down the list of the commandments, reflect his playboy adulterer liar con man lifestyle and ask yourself, why so called Christians endorse Trump despite his blatant violations. the focus on one life to live so make full use of greed power corruption dishonesty, whatever it takes to get rich quick and make my friends family richer too.
4
Really? Your answer to those ridiculous propositions is to just shrug?
1
There is no science in economics nor politics nor punditry nor history nor journalism.
There are too many variables and unknowns to fashon the double-blind and randomized controlled experimental tests that provide predictable and repeatable results that are the essence of science.
Because our lives and livelihoods depend upon knowing what the white European American Judeo-Christian majority really thinks and feels by their actions and inactions black African Americans don't and have never paid any attention to what they write and say.
And a majority of black folks have concluded that a majority of the white European Americans are either guilty of condescending paternalistic liberal white pity or condescending paternalistic conservative white contempt.
Neither group accepts and respects the individual diverse accountable humanity of black Africans in America.
4
Science can be applied to the social sciences but the the knowledge so gained remains uncertain and not deterministic as that gained regarding the physical sciences nor as reproducible as with the life sciences.
Again, Edsall writes the most thoughtful article of the day.
4
Trtump persists because there is a segment of the population that is unable to separate fact from fiction...when presented by a shrewd demagogue, promising 'heaven and earth', and assuring those folks he is the only that can save them from their predicament (feeling 'left behind'). Our lack of education, focusing only on Fox Noise's disinformation 'services', and continuous blatant lies by the current vulgar bully in-chief, do contribute to the current awful state of affairs. Unless we change, Trump's stupidity shall persist. To everybody's loss!
1
"What if the belief systems used to justify anti-immigrant policies & to justify race prejudice, for that matter — hostility to outsiders, insularity, high sensitivity to external threat — are as deeply ingrained in the American body politic ...."
How naive--of _course_ they are. Proof: our history. Human nature.
But here's the Katherine Hepburn solution, extrapolated from "The African Queen". Human nature, says she, is what we must fight against. Everyone giggles: she's referring to sex. Nope. She's talking about the human (AND American) bent toward cruelty, meanness, ignorance. We know better. And it's a constant and eternal battle to act accordingly
Things are looking pretty bleak these days, though.
John R. Hibbing ignores the social history of racial concepts in order to defend the boneheaded plea: I’m not racist — I’m just evolutionarily more primal!
3
Voters must call their Republican Senators and hold them accountable.
Party before country is the republican party's cult. Moscow Mitch and Senate Republican enablers understand one thing a crushing election defeat.
"Senator provide a fair trial with evidence and witnesses or I will not ever vote for you and I will do everything possible to defeat you. Country before party and this criminal or else."
Call their offices locally and through the capitol operator and provide the above message and I guarantee they will get the message. You may phone the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request. When they answer all you need to state is your name and zipcode and of course your statement.
And yes your statement /voice does matter so please stand up for our constitution and our way of life or the Criminal Con Man in Chief will destroy our country.
2
Apparently, we are now (nearly) all "Ugly Americans" led by the ugliest of them all, Trump.
Our only redemption can be delivering to him and his toady Senators a humiliating defeat in November.
4
It seems that change conservatives are just a bunch of scaredy-cats.
Do Op-Ed commenters actually read the articles, or look at the headline and/or first paragraph then spout out whatever talking point pops into their respective heads?
Read the whole article! Read the articles it references! It’s easy with hot links. Be better!
2
So I guess the moral of the story is friends don't let friends vote drunk.
1
Finally someone speaking the truth. Most voters really don't care about what Trump does. Trump wears being a scoundrel as a badge of honor.
1
All the wraps are off the birth of the US as a scheme of state level optional liberty to enslave now. Deliberation is conspicuously abhorrent to its grossly malapportioned Senate.
What is a scheme of state optional liberty to enslave now?
All true, but there is a simpler top-down explanation. Trump is in power because of Rupert Murdoch's dominance of the Anglophone world with his tabloid spleen and pop-imitation of journalism. A Fox viewer is a Trump voter, with pure Pavlovian determinism. (So it was, in fact, an immigrant with a criminal past who actually empowered Trump.) Plus, Trump delivered the only ideal the GOP has ever consistently stood for: huge tax breaks for the wealthy. Fox and Trump succeeded in creating a winning coalition of the stupid, the greedy, the fearful, and the violent.
1
“Because alcohol limits cognitive capacity and disrupts controlled responding, while leaving automatic thinking largely intact, these data are consistent with our claim that low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism.”
So that explains it!!! Trump has just been drunk all this time!!
Thomas. As a POTUS supporter I have advice for your next column. Try not starting out attacking us as less tolerant, less empathetic or the lessor of anything if you want us to finish reading your analysis.
4
This is how a nation descends into fascist barbarity.
This won’t lead to Auschwitz, but it is leading to something vile. Perhaps something more horrific and long lasting.
“ The election of Trump and his first three years in office have revealed a nation deeply ambivalent about immigration, race, equality, fairness — even about the ground rules of democracy itself.” — Thomas B. Edsall
1
He persists as the devil is the ruler of this world and all political nations in it, the people are under influence of the devil and more so since he was cast out of heaven to the vicinity of the Earth in 1914 (the beginning of the end times). All of what is now being seen can be found foretold in the Bible for millennia. His lies are the perfect embodiment of what the devil stands for as the original father of the lie.
Do not underestimate the amount of "foreign aid" Trump and the Republican Party get from Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and Vladimir Putin's Russian digital army.
1
Could it be the disinformation machine? How many reading have lost a friend or family member to the nonsense and divisive hatred pushed by talk radio or FOX TV? How many reading this have seen decent people transformed into raving and increasingly angry, bigoted, paranoid, hyper-nationalist fanatics? I certainly know a few. It didn't start with Trump --
https://almarkowitz.blogspot.com/2018/11/divided-and-conquered-roger-and-us.html
1
“…Voters are less tolerant, less empathetic and less interested in integrity than many political analysts thought…
Sort of a “Glass is half-empty” lead-in, Tom – and on such a bright and sunny day…
How about…
“…Voters are more rational, more sympathetic, and more interested in prosperity than many political analysts thought…
It’s the economy…
PS
Go ask AG if he wants 3 Pulitzers or a thirty-percent pop in paid digital subscriptions, in 2020…
After he tells you “both” – ask him to rank them…
After he tells you to consider asking the Editorial Board for their view(s) – just let it go…
3
@W in the Middle Nice allusion to the Ed Board "split the baby" endorsement of Warren AND Kloubachar - I caught it :)
I recently had a conversation with a small business owner that illustrates the Democrat's problem. He said, "I think Trump is a nut, but he has the economy humming and I'm making a lot of money. Why should I vote for someone who may ruin that? I'm voting for Trump."
The Democrats are operating in a bubble similar to 2016, "If I and all my friends believe this, it must be true." We all know how that turned out. Its not too late, but the day is turning towards evening, you don't have much time left.
To quote James Carville "It's the economy, stupid."
8
Albert Camus said it all in La Peste: "La betise insiste toujours"
stupidity always prevails.
What should we call this column? It isn’t a proof. Edsall makes a point and quotes people who believe or suggests the same thing.
What shall we call it; edsallism?
Most “good books” describe “persist” as “refuse to stop” So the article is “Why does Trump refuse to stop?” “Edsallism” .argues it’s because we won’t let him.
1
“The most popular man under a democracy is not the most democratic man, but the most despotic man. The common folk delight in the exactions of such a man. They like him to boss them. Their natural gait is the goose step.”
--- H. L. Mencken
2
Vomit from academe.. how is it the the wunderkind from
Harvard and Yale and MIT and Oxford and the Sorbonne
in all there sparkle of being expert ..have allowed the world- they self-deceptively mind over- to slide into such an uncertain
future???
1
"...low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism."
Hence... Fox viewers?
"Low-effort thinking" == "deplorable", right?
1
It’s like Black Mold. Once it’s in your House, nearly impossible to completely eradicate.
Seriously.
Looking at that photo image along side this editorial piece, it looks like shadows of nazi salutes in front of an American flag.
Voters are less tolerant, less empathetic and less interested in integrity than many political analysts thought.
The one thing you forgot to mention, voters are LESS EDUCATED. Ignorance breeds prejudice and fear of the unknown and other.
I bet if someone wore a button in that crowd that said “ NO anti-semitism” you would be laughed at at the very least. Then taunted.
We have past the point of saving this country from the haters.
Remember the short fingered bigoted vulgarian proclaimed it himself “ I love the uneducated”.
How can you say voters are less educated? We have the highest shares of people that graduated high school, have some post-secondary classes, and have completed college degrees in our history.
1
When white people get involved, they must overcome the backlash hurled at them for “privilege”. In other words-white people go over there, and shut up. And, why do we have e Trump? Sources including the NYT tell us 4 million young, black and brown people who voted twice for Obama did not vote on 2016! Let’s talk about them (I am waiting for my apology from the black/brown voters for sticking us with Trump)
1
Trump and Republicans have uncovered the real face of the American people. Nobody embodies the Ugly American as Trump and his adoring fans do: uneducated, unhealthy, greedy, amoral, ignorant, hateful, dysfunctional. Like it or not, that is what a way too big a chunk of our fellow citizens are.
2
In a nutshell, conservatives have zero empathy for humankind.
1
I just listed to this piece on the HIll critiquing the Times dual endorsement of Warren and Klobuchar. Give it a listen. Perhaps you will learn something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2CzLZyDycs
Keep It Simple Stupid.
Most Americans agree that 1) no able bodied person deserves a hand out forever; 2) while there is racism, misogyny and discrimination, in 2020, women, blacks and Hispanics of equal qualification to a white male are more likely to admitted to the college of their choice, be hired, and promoted; 3) a county without a border and an immigration policy that’s enforced will not exist for very long; 4) a dollar in my pocket is worth a lot more and will be used more wisely than 10 cents in the government’s; 5) there is no free anything - no free college, no free food, no free healthcare unless persons producing these things are not paid; 5) the bedrock principle that personal responsibility for personal action is solid - if you eat too much you are fat, no one else is at fault and if you overdose on drugs I and the government are not responsible, you are.
5
Why would we ever think otherwise? Leaders who were democratically elected include Hitler, Putin, and Maduro (of course, other political systems can result in bad leaders too). Many humans have an authoritarian wolf-pack orientation, particularly when times are stressful. Americans are no different.
Got it Tom, empathy is unnatural and don't call a racist a racist. Thanks for nothing.
We keep trying to understand this mystery of trump. All reeps will vote for a tax cut no matter who they have to vote for. It’s how they’re wired. Even nice reeps would put money number two after their family in order of importance. They love money. It’s that simple. No, they care nothing about integrity but then they never did. THe dummies who punch a clock and vote for him are just that stupid.
The adaptability of all to adjust to changes doesn't just happen, as Edsall gathers information from various authors of studies as to the damning question of just how and why Trump persists. I admit to feeling deep loathing for Trump that satisfies me, but have trouble understanding others who stand for Trump, other than they are less educated, watch too much Fox, are racists or reactionaries at their core, and other demeaning facts. I know in West Texas there's a circle the wagons type reaction to others and I always wondered whether it was a scarcity of water resources to be shared that begat such prejudice, an adherence to the old-timers' customs of the country that was not inclusive, or simply a lack of the other that wasn't in fact racist. East Texas, blacks were targets of racism and violence; West Texas, Mexicans, Hispanics, Germans at one point during the Civil War. This reminds me to lower the vitriol, up the attempt to understand. Not enough to vote for Trump or the GOP, let's get that clear.
Trump simply says out loud what the his minority of voters believes but were kept from saying due to societal norms (ie the way normal people act in public). Now that they have an ignorant compulsive liar, bigot, racist, misogynist as their "president" they are quite happy and now feel they can say and do anything they want anytime they want. He appears to be a perfect representation his voters - a sociopath. Sad, but true.
Let me cite Edsall from 2013 "Hard Times for Some" on Buffalo NY
"Median household income is $30,230, just over half the state’s $56,951 median. The city has a 29.1 percent poverty rate, twice the statewide rate. In 1960, Buffalo had a population of 532,759; 261,310 people live there now."
Now, NYS is thoroughly Democratic controlled State. With What has the State done to help those ?
"Despite Protests, Cuomo Says He Will Not Extend a Tax Surcharge on Top Earners"
NY Times Oct. 17, 2011
Instead the Democrats have cared about the millionaires in NYC
5
I'm wondering whether a lot of this research (which purports to be universal social-science) is overly focused on the U.S., e.g. Skitka: "Because blaming the individual is a default or fallback position, liberals have to go through a “more cognitively effortful” process to reach their less “natural” conclusion..."
The U.S. has been awash in the myth of "rugged individualism" since European settlers first arrived, and the expanding "frontier" across the continent. Eastern cultures and even modern west European cultures are much more likely to acknowledge the fact that homo sapiens is a social species. Yes we often compete, but usually as part of a group or team.
The next question becomes: Who's on our team? This morning I am part of a work team; this evening I will be part of a very different sport team; next weekend I will be part of yet another volunteer/social team.
West European education systems (especially the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, modern Germany etc.) encourage the concept of social fluidity and tolerance. They encourage generosity towards refugees. Sweden pushes all families to put their toddlers into publicly provided pre-schools that instill Swedish language and values, including tolerance.
By contrast, conservative American states cut funding for education and stoke fear of "outsiders," pushing an ethos of "self-reliance" including reliance on guns for "self-defense."
Hoping against hope we can overcome the fear mongering next November.
4
I am certainly one of those "political hobbyists." While I agree that my relative comfort makes me more complacent than I'd like, I'd maintain there something else at play. When undertaking a new path such as political activism, the anxiety of deciding where to start and the process of learning to be more active is not simple. A more generous assumption than the quoted authors is that we hobbysists could use help, encouragmeent, and yes more initiative to get involved.
1
Either the researchers cited are "on to something" or they are hitting the right notes to attract my attention. I have over the years watched the phenomenon of how public schools counter or reinforce the effects of impoverishment in the aftermath of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), the "suburbanization" of housing development, "White flight," and the rise of private schools as an alternative to public schools. The only certainty in this matter is that public schools fail or succeed in aiding a rise from the bottom social mobility based on particular local circumstances: how the school taxing district aligns with taxable value of real estate and the political response. My community is fortunate: the school district did not face the rise of separate suburban communities "pulling up the ladders" to keep out lower income residents and leave them with an insufficient tax base. Due to the balkanization of small rural school districts elsewhere in the state, standards are not met. The legislature always says it is doing its best for public schools and higher education, but it has not caught up with the 2008 recession cutbacks. This is where conservative voices are raised in objection to increases in state appropriations and property tax override elections because the schools and teachers unions are "wasting my tax money (on other people)"
One of the most influential articles in The Times I've ever read appeared in the Tuesday, April 3, 1984 edition in Science Times. Daniel Goleman's article posited two personality types: the philobat and the ocnophile. https://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/03/science/saying-goodbye-speaks-volumes.html
Those of us who love new and exciting experiences and novelty and who adore diversity and complexity and value personal freedom more than security (philobats) are unhappy under Trump and similar authoritarian leaders around the world who dislike diversity and variety and who do not tolerate immigrants.
What I loved about growing up in New York City during my adolescence (I was born in 1951) that there were so many different kinds of people, something that grew exponentially after the 1964 civil rights and immigration reform laws passed. We became "The World in a City," to use the title from Times reporter Joseph Berger's 2007 book, subtitled "Traveling the Globe Through the Neighborhoods of the New New York."
Alas, our mentality and worldview is now despised among the majority of U.S. voters.
3
@Richard Grayson
"Alas, our mentality and worldview is now despised among the majority of U.S. voters."
Don't think so. Any citations?
If you assume Trump supporters are the ones who "despise" the worldview you describe, they are seriously outnumbered by Trump opponents in all polls since January 20, 2017.
About a month or two ago , while ranting about low or non-information voters being allowed to vote , I realized that I probably belong to that cohort . I read , watch and listen obsessively to politics but in reality have only scratched the surface . I am a perfect example of a political “ hobbyist “ . I need another hobby .
3
Millions of Americans envy, admire and look up to successful politicians, businessmen, entertainers and sports figures who rob, cheat and steal, express racist sentiments and live lives of debauchery.
They even encourage their children to think of these men and women as role models.
3
People don’t care about much anymore - period. Everything is a distraction.
2
American voters care nothing for integrity, honesty, ethics, morality and decency.
They just want more stuff.
4
Oh well, the good news is that America is bankrupt, it will never be able to pay off its 23 trillion dollar plus debt, so when the crash happens after this "roaring 20's" economic insanity...
Actually, I can't bring myself to say something positive about the future, for as wealth becomes it own justification for power, we can only descend into oligarchic pretend democracy, with pretend rule of law and more and more insane foreign wars.
Trump isn't an aberration, a man who serves only his personal greed and need for attention, he is what happens when a good democracy turns to Putinesque devotion to obedience.
Hugh
1
As always, Mr. Edsall offers an eye-opening essay. We don’t like to talk about it too much, but it’s clear that one of the great divides in America is not poor vs. rich, but “low-effort thinking” people vs. people who are able to have complex thoughts. While poor people have no problem acknowledging that they are poor and want to improve their lot, “low-effort thinking” people unfortunately cannot see the limitations of their own thinking and revel in the stupidity of their leaders. Sadly, the fact that Trump is so intellectually challenged might be one of his greatest political assets.
2
One wonders why Mr. Edsall would lay out such an easy, fool-proof plan for Trump's re-election.
Get the Democrats drunk. Take away some of their stuff. Put them in fight-or-flight situations.
Voila! They'll immediately go tribal, primal, less postmodernist, more conservative.
They'll oppose the sweeping "open borders" and "green new deal" policies many apparently didn't really support in the first place.
Some might not only drop out of the perma-opposition but also vote for Trump.
Can you imagine?
Should have kept this research hidden...
3
The failure of the American electorate to rise up in opposition to President Trump...suggests that voters are less tolerant, less empathetic and less insistent on integrity than many believe.
"Suggests" is certainly an understatement. The failure is proof.
"Less tolerant" means intolerant--i.e lacking reasonable tolerance for differences, ethnic, racial, sexual--if you don't like them, at least let them be. These are the Conservative/ Regressives--the Nostalgiacs--pining for the good ole days of ignorance, prejudice sexism and godstory delusion.
Progressives, on the other hand welcome and enjoy the differences--aiming at hybrid vigor.
As for "integrity"--that mostly means practicing what you preach and vice vera ("Walking the Talk"). That has been replaces with "free marketing"-- free from law and logic--perpetrating unfounded claims, if not outright fraud, defamation, libel and slander--as well as selling godstory myth as reality, trumping science and all disinterested academic research.
It plays to primitive US/THEM categories and emotions--THEM being the bad guys trying to make Dirty Harry"s day--so his fans can Hoop and Holler.
"The failure of the American electorate to rise up in opposition to President Trump — whose outrages are well-documented — suggests that voters are less tolerant, less empathetic and less insistent on integrity than many believe."
It's more like the American electorate is more ignorant than many believe.
When our low-information votes spend as much time reading their newspaper's front page as they do its sports page, maybe things will change. And, perhaps THEN, they'll realize that that the real game they're in is on Page 1.
3
"Ignorance is the father of fear" Herman Melville. Some things never change.
2
My experience as a Canadian-American in the U.S. is that most Americans have not traveled to a more evolved, civilized country such as Canada, Denmark or Finland and thus don't realize that they don't have to vote for a capitalist brute. A centrist such as Bernie Sanders doing well in American politics is inspiring and I have only waited 40 years for him to get to this point. I have hope that this country can be saved from the economic terrorism of the American right-wing and the stupidity of neoliberal oligarchs (Mrs. Clinton should be backing him instead of trying to undermine him).
The criticism of those who have to work for a living and only have time to send contributions to their candidate rather than show up at a demonstration unarmed and thus become a victim of the plutocrats' police forces just shows how out of touch the upper class is with the lives of us working stiffs. I laughed out loud at that. The author needs to wake up and look around him.
2
@Eugene Debs
While "most" have not so traveled, many have. I spend my days in professional circles. Many of the people I know have been to Canada and Europe. Often both, or more than once.
The conservatives, despite witnessing thriving, peaceful societies, come back and still insist that single payer results in lousy medical care and a populace impoverished by draconian taxes.
There are none so blind as will not see. American exceptionalism is a religion. An article of faith, not fact.
2
Probably the best insights have had in understanding political polarization and our seemingly increasing march toward fascist ideology in the United States comes from George Lakoff and his concept of “framing” and a world view based on the “stern father” or the “loving nurturing mother.” I don’t even have to explain which represents conservative or liberal using this approach.
Two authors you’ve cited in the past for what I would consider seminal work, Jonathan D. Weiler and Marc J. Hetherington suggest in their book “the Prius and the Pick-up” that people are “fluid, fixed, or mixed”. As well they show how parties appear divided more and more by gut level disdain for each other.
I still feel Karp’s seminal essay on the “Paranoid Right” was the birthplace of the far right that is now mainstream Republican thinking today.
The thing I find most concerning is that no one seems able to come up with a working method to overcome closed minded paranoia. Personally, I think we develop these world views at a very early age and they are baked into our brains like religion which can then be typically manipulated for worse more so than better.
Ridiculous!
Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.
The American electorate by large approves and supports liberal policies. The only issue here is that our elected representatives do not uphold the will of the people. They are beholden to powerful interests groups that have no interests in solving problems.
These “experts” talking about how liberals and progressives are “intransigent” about Inmigration and just call everyone who disagrees with them a racist is just another conservative talking point. Show me one instance when the popular opinion has been that immigration reform ( which is the liberal progressive position ) is racist. On the contrary, the intransigence comes from the the law and order crowd who are more squared than the root of 4 and can’t understand or chose to ignored the issues of how immigration is the basis of American communities and their economic future.
Finally, let me just mention this: do away with gerrymandering and the electoral college and I will show you a modern and prosperous, humanist society on the heels of it.
What a coincidence I am in the Netherlands right now, where they are able to accommodate almost everything under the sun including milk carton with Braille print on them.
I refuse to believe that that kind of humanist progressivism is impossible to achieve in the United States of America.
7
"...if the environment shifts back to a “threat-filled atmosphere,” then “positive selection for conservative orientations would reappear.” Well Fox News and Republicans generally have sure figured that one out. Keep them frightened, as well as poorly educated with the destruction of K-12 (no science, etc. especially in the South) and you have the perfect environment to maintain conservatism to the extreme. We have the lowest unemployment in decades, no war yet, and the right is afraid of their own shadow.
It is really quite straightforward to succinctly describe the attributes that characterize a Trump supporter, particularly at this juncture of our politics. They are either greedy, bigoted, stupid, or some combination of the former. I am willing to excuse those individuals who may have voted for Trump initially but now who have “buyers” remorse. But for those who support Mr. Trump at this point in time, I consider you my enemy. And I intend to treat you as such whenever I can. The adjective “deplorable” accurately describes who the are.
A problem is that the right is using lies to exaggerate fears that would push people to the right. For example, Trump's characterization of undocumented immigrants as rapists and murderers when the facts show they commit fewer crimes than American citizens. Also, the white supremacists are full of fears based on bogus views about whites being replaced by non-whites. And fears are also created by unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that are widely spread such as the intelligence community is a "deep state" that trying to take over the government. A basic problem is that power can be gained by lying to increase fear which is exactly what a demagogue such as Trump does. The strength of the right is based on lies and conspiracy theories whipping up fear and hate beyond what would otherwise occur based on real circumstances. This is probably why polls show that voters have views that are more to the right than is generally thought.
The New York Times completely missed the phenomenon not only of Donald Trump, but of current American politics. And its readers suffer accordingly – they will again be shocked when Trump wins, this time with a stonking victory margin.
5
Don't tell people they're political dilletantes.
They no longer include their Trump-voting relatives at Thanksgiving. They marched in Washington on Jan 21, 2017--after taking a bus! They cried when HRC lost. They record Rachel Maddow.
We're talking in the bone stuff.
3
You actually disinvited blood family members from a holiday dinner because of something as petty as politics? Wow.
Hersh’s description of college educated, white voters who “do politics as hobbyists because they can...but..are pretty comfortable with the status quo” would seem to apply almost anyone who is well off. Would it be a stretch to categorize Michael Bloomberg, Andrew Yang, or Tom Steyer as “hobbyists?” Isn’t Trump the paradigm example of a political hobbyist? Betsy DeVos? The entire British Monarchy! Perhaps we should just admit that wealth and wellbeing have a profound impact on how one encounters reality. Those who struggle to make ends meet, regardless of race or education, have little time to devote to politics or hobbies.
2
For a long time I have been wondering what makes people so feverishly loyal to this president. I truly could not understand it.
Many buts came to mind. What about this? What about that? It's easy to come up with one-word answers. It's hard to dig deeper.
Thanks for this thoughtful article from an old-time (maybe just old) feverishly dedicated liberal Democrat who spends a lot of time scratching her head and asking what the......
2
If USA citizens want to save the planet for future generations then get out there and vote to stay in the Paris Climate Accord.
1
I’ll probably be accused of hyperbole but I’m guessing that, we’re he alive, Ben Franklin would be saying that you’ve lost your Republic.
There are no more effective checks or balances.
1
Yikes, see yourself in these Hersh quotes? I do... I'm following Beto's Twitter but I didn't go out door to door in the special election he's working. Too far... I thought about going down to the demonstration at Hurd's office but my workload was too heavy...
It mattered to me when it was a a question of being drafted. I'll nee to get back to that frame of mind by election time.
However ambivalent educated Democrats may be about liberalism, this ambivalence does not apply to feelings about Trump. Liberals absolutely despise him (with good reason in my estimation), and while many may not vote against him with their feet or wallets, they most certainly will show up at polls and pull the lever for the Democratic candidate. Call it political hobbyism if you like, but Democrats have no ambivalence about what has to happen in this election and they will turn out in record numbers.
2
So, one can summarize that in general more intelligent people are leaning towards liberal values. Interesting.
Mr. Edsall writes like an anatomist trying to describe the skeleton of boneless chicken.
American social and political thought are built around two great underlying principles, both absent from his essay.
The first is religious belief, essentially a preference for the supernatural over the natural. The second is a love of violence and cruelty for its own sake, which includes violence against the natural world.
An individual may embrace these principles or reject them. Their politics may be colored by regional or class interests. However, in the end, they will associate and act in concert with people who share their core values.
The worst of American politics has always come from religiously endorsed violence.
At the same time, the idea of “freedom from religion” has been present in the United States since its founding. The idea of women being equal to men made faster progress in the United States than it did in any other part of the world. American science, driven largely by immigrants, has led the world for many decades.
We are presently at a crossroads. Reason and superstition are at a stalemate. The key issue now is violence towards Nature in the form of uncontrolled pollution. That and violence against each other. The gun nuts are fearful, and this should have us concerned.
But Mr. Edsall and his acolytes go blithely on, nattering about “liberals” and “conservatives”, and never wondering why their boneless chicken can’t get up and dance.
1
I believe the ascendancy of Trump and the callous partisanship of the GOP are the products of a simple, basic fact about the USA. It appears that somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of US voters are, in their heart of hearts, intolerant bigots and racists. Most of them will deny it and would be outraged to be described as such, but the deepening political and cultural polarization that is the “new normal” is the best evidence.
3
People under the influence of drink, tell the truth more, their true feelings come out, not some soc. profs jumbo jumbo
1
And perhaps, able to think for themselves.
I love the section that illustrates a correlation with drunkness and conservative thought.
"Low-level thinking" means no critical or analytical thinking. Because our educational system is so shabby, inferior and dumbed-down that it's virtually impossible to discover high-level intellectual capacity among our electors anymore. Gurgling and drooling in an infantile state of bliss over their minute silicon screens depicting childish memes from social media, the average boob cares only about connectivity and may occasionally glance at the stock markets. Outside of jonesing with one's peers and having the identical Canada Goose or North Face apparel that is de rigeur for certain American regions, there's no brain activity. So of course Trump entered that enormous vacuum and this impeachment, poorly understood, is the consequence...
1
Perhaps it would be a different matter if his opponents were not even worse than he is. They personify all the vices that they so loudly accuse him of harboring. Intolerance, hate, prejudice, corruption, disdain for the constitution the law and "truth". Edsall being encased in the bubble is blind to all of this. He just cannot see things for how they are, hence his confusion. Or, he is just part of the disinformation campaign. Either way I give no weight to his words. Trump is an ogre is many ways but his election has shone a spotlight on the hypocrisy and machinations of the establishment Democrats and the mainstream press.
2
@Daphne You are absolutely correct about the hypocrisy of the establishment Democrats and mainstream press. For instance, after the leader of ISIS was killed by our military at Trumps direction,the WaPo described him as "an austere reclusive cleric" instead of celebrating that a mass murderer had been removed from this mortal coil. Ditto when Iran's number 2 evil Genius, Solemaini, who was responsible for hundreds of American deaths and severe injuries was assassinated. "They" keep telling us not to listen to Fox News, (and i do get tired of the cheerleading there) but when the MSM cannot responsibly report on and support such righteous actions by this adminisration becasue of their innnate hatred of all things Trump, where are we supposed to get any semblance of "news vs views"? Oh yeah, these are the same people who venerate Clapper and Brennan after BOTH of them were proven to have lied to Congress about the surveiilance state they helped build!
2
Mr. Edsall is a champion of making a well referenced argument. (I, of course, get my opinions out of the whole cloth of my brain). Nevertheless, I opine that there is a continuum of behavior from animal behavior or animal competition all the way to some apex of civilized individuals through to a further more sophisticated form of death combat. Animals we see in Our Planet, the Our Earth and any of the documentaries, demonstrate brutal competition for food or reproduction, through cheating, stealing or hurting the competitor. Human behavior since the earliest history has been similar but eventually with Religious counsel and organized governments of laws, people were forced to at least not kill each other (but oh, lynching! Hitler, the Trail of Tears etc) and maybe war is sometimes replaced with Football or Boxing for a while. As society reaches higher civility there is more acceptance of and sympathy for others, though intermittent, and now we know only temporarily felt. Leaders that break down the fragile culture of tolerance built brick brick are sinning against civilization itself. Hyper-partisan politics.
When the government provides aid and comfort to illegal aliens, the electorate notices. The electorate becomes incensed when illegal aliens are given priority in matters of education, health care, welfare benefits and housing. As an American citizen, tax payer and voter, your hurt feelings about who I vote for and why, don't matter to me.
"...Stenner said, “is vital to both societal cohesion and human flourishing.” But, she warned, “we may have tipped the balance too far in favor of unconstrained diversity and complexity,” pushing the boundary beyond “many people’s capacity to tolerate it.”
Or, you could take her word, for it.
"...we need to tinker with that balance and get it right for everyone."
Nothing can be "right" for everyone. You need to make it right, for the most people that will vote for it. As a reminder, illegal aliens aren't citizens and they can't vote. Liberals need to keep that little factoid in mind.
1
This just leaped out at me: “Conservatives only act like liberals when they are asked to consider helping a person with internally controllable causes of need who has convincingly reformed.”
Much like evangelicals welcome “fallen people” only after they confess their sins and ask for redemption.
1
Really interesting.
Did you see how academics in Red states have some really negative spin about conservatives, while the academics from Blue states have negative spin about liberals? Its easier to dig below the surface when the object of your study is nearby.
How do you get people to put more effort into their thinking without sounding (and without being) arrogant? How do you convince people that the political candy bars and cotton candy they’ve been eating (with the high profit encouragement of Fox propaganda) is bad for them and others? This is the challenge facing my political party, the Democrats.
1
"Bar patrons reported more conservative attitudes as their level of alcohol intoxication increased. Because alcohol limits cognitive capacity and disrupts controlled responding, while leaving automatic thinking largely intact, these data are consistent with our claim that low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism."
And...
"Diana Mutz, a professor of political science and communication at the University of Pennsylvania, pointed out that one effect of increasing education levels is to fundamentally change individual world views. “The one sense in which there is evidence that we do ‘overcome’ our tendencies toward tribalism is through education,” she wrote by email."
-----
Conservatism is thinking like a drunk.
Education (i.e., liberalism) sobers people up.
The key to winning on November 3 2020 is educated Americans registering and voting in record numbers against drunken Trumpistan.
Decent Americans don't let friends vote Republican.
4
Or maybe it is in vino veritas. They could have become less driven to repeat fashionable and correct answers.
Great collection of ideas from scholars. I wonder if any of them have asked their subjects “Why isn’t America great any more?” and “why don’t Americans value integrity like they used to?”
Your topic sentence states that Americans don't care as much about integrity as was once thought. Then your entire essay discusses something completely different. I'd be interested in an essay on integrity, because I think you're right; Americans, by and large, are immoral and like leaders who are immoral. Cheating is fine as long as it helps me and hurts the other guy. Go Astros!
1
@tanstaafl - Yes; it explains why Americans like 'bad boys', as well as why celebrated 'disruption' has become cover for lawbreaking, and going rogue.
Oh, what a surprise; Americans aren't the 'greatest'. Huh. Well, chalk alot of that up to economics. We have been giving the fruits of this land to the rich for decades, centuries, but it is now in crisis mode. The concentration of wealth, property, income and power has totally corrupted our 'democracy', turning it instead into a pretty clear plutocracy.
Republicans have been the real criminals, but Democrats have been slow to react and also can be seduced by tax cuts that may favor them (if their millionaires). We are a selfish lot, we human beings.
Government is to protect us from our worst impulses and guide us to a 'more perfect Union'; but we have abandoned that. We are all about ourselves. And who better to lead this horrid revolution but the spoiled-brat, Trump. He is who we are at our worst.
Republicans don't care if their President lies; just tell them some 'enemies' to hate and make their self-pity less egregious. Mexicans, Muslims, Liberals, women, anybody, really. Hate fuels this charge of the wealth brigade. Keep the eyes off the prize, for the few have stolen it, and keep them on some sideshow.
Persists. Greed persists. Inside of us. US. Trump is the rallying cry for selfish greed. 'Lock love up! Lock love up!' All about the money, baby.
This is all very well, but to throw the baby out with the bath water is murder. Killing democracy is nuts and will haunt us, take the joy out of living and make life more repressive than we ever imagined. Killing democracy under Trump is nothing short of insanity.,Meanwhile Canada, our very democratic next door neighbor, goes quietly along, free of all the anxiety and stress. Why? Find that out and you will have the answer to everything.
Sorry we aren't up to sample, Mr. Edsall.
I guess you'll just have to elect a different people.
1
To accept these premises one must assume rational thought motivates this reactionary man. On more of a gut level, I would attribute his ability to exploit and nationalize peoples’ worse instincts of fear, hatred, racism and greed.
People once thought to be ethical look away because he plays to their self interests, or their fear of having personal dirt and weaknesses exposed.
This is also how dictators rise to power.
1
I digest political news from every angle every day for the last 10 plus years. I’ve read every book on political philosophy that has come out (some classic, but mostly fairly new books).
I read the NYTs daily.
Then I get to the truth that the NYTs hides or buries.
3
Telling others what to do might not always be good – this is unless – exalting family values – one is in a position of moral superiority – is perhaps relaying advice!
The American electorate has not failed "to rise up in opposition to President Trump." We just haven't had another presidential election yet.
Trump only won in 2016 because nobody thought he could win. If we'd held another election a week later, he would have been crushed.
Look at the spike in 2018 voter turnout. This is the real "Trump Bump": https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/29/gen-z-millennials-and-gen-x-outvoted-older-generations-in-2018-midterms/
In his way, Trump makes the deep, sad American psyche revealed. And it is more than awful.
1
@Roland Berger
Don't forget.
It's a big country and Trump only represents part of it.
I believe our fundamentalist Christian leaders should shoulder the blame for our crude transformation. They have replaced Christ with their own grotesque version of grace. It’s “might makes right” on steroids.
1
Trump could have never risen to power, or stayed there, without the cooperation and protection of corrupt Republicans in Congress and the shamelessness of Fox news.
Their collective ability to lie, distort, manipulate and confuse is as impressive as it is immoral.
2
Ordinarily, really all the time, I have trust in Mr Edsall's view of our society. But today he proves the truism that email is really an incompetently shallow means of communication when it comes to serious things.
Every single one of his e-correspondents are what we call white. All of his e-correspondents present one, two, three sentence summaries of their findings. And the generality of them are unmitigated by specificity. Not one of his e-correspondents here today contextualize their sociological studies in real American racial/ethnic history or the controlling ideology of white power cultural structures.
Which leads to such misguided bon mots as this: "liberalism is 'an evolutionary luxury' that can emerge in people when 'negative stimuli becoming less prevalent and less deadly... 'when daily threats to life and limb posed by other human beings have diminished.'” Really? Then how does Mr Hibbing explain the 90% voting record of black folks for Democrats?
Or this, "Tribalism... is not a mindless and eternal “us versus them” mentality. It is a set of psychological adaptations that make people respond to threats and intergroup competition with an urge to band together..." Really? The Kansas farmer suffering Trump's tariffs and voting against universal healthcare is adapting to threats from... New Yorkers and Californians? Rich Latinos flooding into Salina?
The naïveté leaping off the page of these all-white socio-political psychologists is astounding.
1
Indeed. None of these surveys examined the effect of in-country migration from poor states to wealthy states. The latter is expected to provide social services for the rest of the country. Here in SF we have voted repeatedly for tax increases to provide services. More proposed increases are on the ballot this year. I don’t know anybody here participating in politics who are not concerned about the homeless. Contrary to these social and political scientists, there is absolutely no evidence to the claims of disconnected inner city residents. While there may be debate about how to approach these issues, it is a far cry from these dubious claims.
Blaming people in the inner cities has historically been America’s response to out sundry social problems. It is merely a mechanism for shifting responsibility.
The article should have addressed the poor prediction capabilities of these studies. The news media, whether conservative or liberal, have recently featured many articles discrediting social studies.
1
This is not about political analysts. The public isn't buying the nonsense and craziness of Nadler and Schiff. Its really not complicated at all.
They rushed the "Impeachment" through the house and are now paying the price for their goofy behavior. They should withdraw and start over to present a viable case, in totality, to the Senate.
@Matt
No offense. But you are hardly in the position to speak about what the American public is "buying" when it comes to Mr. Nadler and Mr. Schiff.
As for the impeachment, the only thing "goofy" is the actions of Mitch McConnell and this president who seems to think he's above the law.
Think not?
Imagine what Republicans would do if Obama was the one on trial.
Case closed.
1
Let me just write it out loud: I get it why the New York Times wanted to expand its stable of op-ed writers and include conservative voices such as Bret Stephens, David Brooks and Thomas Edsall among others. Quite frankly, the only really interesting one is Ross Douthat, which I enjoy reading. The others mostly serve up already heard platitudes and don’t really research and support their opinions with proper analysis. Serving platitudes and doing one or two google search to find a link to quote seemingly solid evidence backing you up just does not cut it for me.
Can I make a suggestion?
Expand your op-ed team and include Ana Kasparian and Carlson Tucker. Obviously very different politically but I enjoy listening to both of them.
If that headline thought is true then political analysts need to get new jobs. They’re more clueless than I thought. Maybe they can be weathermen or weatherwomen.
Okay. There are a lot of ignorant and lazy Americans, as the polls show. However, many of us really do care about the integrity of our nation and about the disenfranchised, but it seems pointless to fight a system that is rigged. We need to pray that the Democrats can win the majority and make it a priority to change the campaign laws. Otherwise, we will continue our march to the dark side which is fascism.
I think it’s more basic. You vote for Trumpism because you don’t want to pay taxes and/or you harbor racist bias whether implicit or explicit. “I worked hard, why should they get something for nothing”. I often say if slavery were on the ballot, it would lose but not by much.
We are facing rapid migration of countless people desperate for food, water and shelter due to climate change in coming years. So we are all, according to this, going to resort to caveman postures, and endless war will result? We must do whatever we possibly can to mitigate climate change to escape this fate, and DJT is exactly the wrong leader at this critical time. That alone warrants his removal, and the removal of every spineless sycophant supporting him.
Professor Haidt states that "devotion to ... being antiracist" can cause a party to "shift to the extremes."
What exactly would Haidt consider an "extreme" position on antiracism?
I guess as one example from history we could point to WW2 and the bombing by the USA and our allies of civilian targets inside the borders of the racist Nazi and Japanese regimes as an extreme antiracist position.
But then again, those terror bombings (as our own government labeled them) were a response to the extremism of the racist regimes.
It seems pretty clear to me that any "extreme" antiracist action could only be in response to extreme racism.
Long story short: we are unexceptional.
1
Hmm, there’s a word I recall that seems to sum it all up.
Oh yes, it came back to me!
“Deplorable”
I have a big quibble with polling Dems and Republicans about whether the poor deserve their fate without querying each side further about race - “Do you think an opioid-addicted white working class Appalachian family of 5 kids and a single mother is responsible for their distress, or the victim of outside forces?” and “Do you think an impoverished black single-mother family with 5 kids is responsible for their distress, or the victim of outside forces?”
My guess is, you will find a very large difference between the level of sympathy for each of these groups among Republicans than among Democrats. Which would put the lie to the Haidt-type idea that this is all just a difference in temperament with very little racist component.
Democrats always talk the talk but never walk the walk.
1
I wonder how this argument is going to hold up if Trump wins the electoral college and looses the popular vote again.
1
"Liberals act like conservatives when resources are scarce, cognitive load is high, and aid serves secondary rather than primary needs.”
You can watch this unfold in real time whenever a housing-desegregation policy or school-boundary change is proposed in a presumably progressive community.
1
Why Trump persists
As a labour economist: It is the economics of immigration
"immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants. That’s just supply and demand: we’re talking about large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages."
Paul Krugman , NY Times, 2006/03/27
Exactly, why should workers vote for a Party whose political agenda will reduced their wages ?
3
To summarize this article: To create more conservatives, and maintain the conservative stranglehold where it exists: encourage scarcity of resources, do not address homelessness, wage a war on education and science, and propagate real and imagined external threats.
I had always had an assumption as to why republican political leadership seemed to work against its constituency, but this just seals the deal. Add in the electoral college, citizens united, and institutionalized gerrymandering and now the picture becomes clear.
3
"Voters are less tolerant, less empathetic and less interested in integrity than many political analysts thought."
A member of our elite class discussing "integrity", how ironic.
1
Middle class academics have no idea of the situation of the white working class.
Prologue.
In 1919 the steel union struck. 350,000 workers were idled.
The companies then brought in 40,000 Black and Mexican-American replacement workers, "scabs" to the original employees..
There are few enmities as bitter as that between workers and replacement workers. Triggered in part by the steel strikebreaking, race riots in 1919 killed as many as a thousand people.
Today: a 1919 fable.
Until 1970, high wage demands were met by high productivity.
Then growth collapsed.
Workers remained feisty, with unsustainable wage demands.
The owners finally decided to get rid of them and replace them with immigrants and low wage workers abroad.
Lockout.
As in 1919, the owners brought in people ethnically different from the original workers, to whom the replacements were scabs, and thus racial enemies.
From 1980 to 2020, population grew 50%, ie 100 million. 60 million to 70 million of that was immigrants and their children.
The enmity and racism was reinforced each time a worker read "Made in China" on a product.
The owners won. Thus the huge income gap.
The original workers lost. Thus the ruins of Midwestern industry. And thus, Trump.
The non-white replacement workers have much better income and prospects now that they are here. They also have the bitterest enmity from those they replaced.
The owners' doing: 1919 and now. But, the white worker victims get the blame.
9
In reading this article, one is lead to believe that Republicans won a landslide in the 2016 popular vote, and increased their margins in the House in 2018. Further, one can only assume based on this article that President Trump enjoys an overwhelming approval rating. The fact is, however, that the nativist, racist, anti-democratic position is a decidedly minority position that only prevails due to the peculiarity of the American political system that gives more power to a geographically dispersed population than a concentrated majority of people. To win Democrats need to assert their position as representing a growing majority of the population with a program that looks to future rather than preserving the past for a shrinking minority of the population.
6
The reason that many ignore the criminality of Trump is due to the color of his skin. If he was a black man or a member of an obvious ethnic group or any minority group, the criminality, vile language, hateful actions, misogyny, and lying would have gotten him tossed from office during the first year. But as long is Trump is white there is a large segment of the population that will tolerate him being a lowlife, ignorant, criminal.
5
Maybe the subtitle should have been: Smart People Don't Watch Fox.
So called conservatives seem to live in horror at the prospect the U.S. might turn into Sweden, with the goal to make everyone comfortable with a feeling of belonging.
Liberals live in horror at the prospect the U.S. is turning into Nazi Germany.
Hitler started out extolling his supporters to beat up fellow Germans who didn't agree with them. Sound familiar?
4
Bill Clinton had sex with a 22 year old intern in the Oval Office and lied about it to the American people. It was not so much the sex but the use of power against a female subordinate. To this day he remains an icon in the Democratic Party.
Ralph Northam’s nickname is “Coonman” and wore either blackface or a KKK hood in his yearbook picture. Yet he remains in office in VA.
The Democrats made a deal with the devil to overlook things so long as the policies are fine with them.
So, is it any wonder that voters discount “integrity”?
4
@Joseph
It's not just the frivolity of the Monica case. Clinton was charged, credibly, with rape by a woman named Juanita Broaddrick. She gave a compelling interview to NBC three weeks before his Senate trial. NBC suppressed the interview for five weeks, which got Clinton home safe.
Yes, some people are above the law. Even Democrats.
3
@Joseph
"It was not so much the sex but the use of power against a female subordinate."
Go back and read the accounts of what actually happened and you'll find that the relationship was consensual and pursued by Monica Lewinsky. Her conversations with her "friend" Linda Tripp (the Republican operative who blew the whistle on her) about the affair don't betray anything approaching coercion by a male in a superior position.
There's a simpler explanation. Trump persists because GOP senators let him persist, no matter how much it hurts the country. They are so intent on keeping their government sinecures they have sold their souls to a serial liar, phlanderer, cheat and "useful idiot" for Vladimir Putin.
14
All well and good. Here is the biggest failing I think the pro immigrant side has made for 2 decades. It has been their unwillingness (or maybe it is just really smart people don't think of root causes) to confront the nativist on who really is to blame for the flood of economic immigrants. Easy answer, the employers. How many times has the employer been held up as the villain by the displaced workers? Trump did it. Did his MAGA hat wearing, out of work drones point this out? Nooooo! Too easy to blame the underpaid, probably illegal worker. "Conservatives" seek easy answers as the article points out. Blame those who can't fight back. Blame the homeless campers for pooping on the new high rise building a rich, connected developer built with tax giveaways (eg welfare) Blame the immigrant for doing the backbreaking work that makes food cheap, but don't blame the employer who turned a blind eye. It's an easy solution, so easy a conservative could have thought of it.
6
Another great Esall post. And interesting comments here. The observation that liberal values involve more thought process and correspond to more education correlates to the old thesis that liberal democracy thrives more in countries with wealth and growing growth (for example, B. Friedman, "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth"). Also notable is the observation that liberal values can be fragile or brittle, even within an individual. And, sadly, often liberals get carried away in their/our paradigms, for example, not ascribing any agency or responsibility to people who habitually screw up or commit crimes.
1
Fear and opportunity are always in flux. In the 1920's when there was a strong anti-eastern and southern European immigration reaction, the immigration laws for all were tightened up. Farm interests argued that they needed cheap labor so they turned to a conquest of not long ago to make the people there citizens but unable to vote for president; the people of Puerto Rico. After the progressive (leaving the blunder of Vietnam aside) years of the Great Society of LBJ, and the patient character of Jimmy Carter, Reagan asked if YOU were better off then you were four years ago. It was not about are WE better off, but it was personalized at a time when the Iran hostage crisis and high interest rates; there was no shining city on a hill rhetoric, but it shifted from a JFK query about what we can do for our country but what can we do for ourselves at the expense of other. We have be on a march to weaken education and blame people for not being as well educated as they ought to be. We poison the air and water and work to undo the health care protections those uneducated people need. We shovel money to the rich and blame the poor for being poor. And the president embodies all that past preachers denounced but today's preachers praise as they pass the television basket for more money. The heaven of the hypocritical of today is paved with cobblestones of the hell of today for too many.
1
DUH.
Seriously.
1
Congratulations America. When you look at Donald Trump, you are looking at yourself. Now doesn’t that make you feel embarrassed? Well it shouldn’t.
I’m an unabashed old progressive. I have not had to struggle for self-preservation, but I do watch as friends who I graduated with in the early 70’s continue to get more conservative. It’s as if they have little voices in their brain saying, “protect yourself, protect yourself, protect yourself” from the unknown shadows.
The irony in this way of thinking is that by being protective of our self-interest we are really screwing our children. We have monumental issues rising like the tide that we are deferring. If we don’t begin to work together on these issues we will leave our children in a world of chaos.
1
OR, “The strange, but true story of America heading to hell in a hand basket, hand-woven by DJT”
2
The description of complacent liberals as "political hobbyists" struck home.
The more education we have, the more we can identify with all people, and we dream of opportunity for all. But the dreaming is, as Edsall points out, about as political in nature as watching a football game is related to playing it.
As resources diminish, we want to protect our own, I get it. But the dilemma not answered in this column is why Trump supporters attack fellow citizens so viciously, and other working people who happen to be of a different color. A little working class consciousness is needed for the Trump voter.
3
None of your experts have discussed what I find to be the most troubling aspect of the immigration debate. Fully 70% of undocumented immigrants in the US did not sneak across the border with Mexico. They entered the country legally and overstayed their visas. No one seriously talks about solving that problem, indeed very few commentators even acknowledge it. So all the venom is directed at persons from the Northern Triangle and Mexico. This is classic scapegoating. I expect Trump to do it, but I don't expect so-called scholars to do it.
7
Half of visa overstayes are from Central America. Look it up.
1
@Snowball That is not the point. The point is that border walls and fences cannot keep people out if they entered legally. But acknowledging that would undermine the divisive "Wall" fight.
It's really not that complicated: Trump is the leader of a cult. If nothing else, he's a master cult leader, easily a match for the likes of Charles Manson, Jim Jones, or David Koresh.
The phenomenon of cults is well-understood and well-documented in the literature of psychology, and there are ways to deprogram the victims. But that won't be possible as long as he's still president, and it will take a long time to rehabilitate many of the victims (some will never be helped), but there's nothing mysterious or hard to understand about this. No deep, insightful analysis is necessary. All that matters is that enough people become aware that it's a cult, and that the deprogramming and healing must begin as soon as possible.
5
One’s fear of losing something, and/or fear of not obtaining what is desired are life’s driving forces.
When these fears are abated enough to instill some comfort then one becomes open to new experiences and a wider range of diversity.
1
This is such a great article: it raised questions more than attempted to answer them, it provided lots of political science framework for those questions, and it provided lots of links to other authors for more background and detail. And it did this in what I consider a fair and neutral manner.
If one reads this article, and all the links to related papers and authors, you basically have enough for a term paper!
1
Diana Mutz has pointed out what we’ve known for a long time: “In panel studies that track the same people over time, as people gain advanced levels of education, they become more tolerant and favorable toward liberal democratic norms.” Conservatives have, since the 50s, worked systematically to dismantle the education system to keep Americans from being educated. Today many consider higher education evil. This is where things have to begin to change. It’ll take time, but we have to educated Americans if we are to have a democratic society for all.
1
i appreciate dr. edsall's scholarship and regretted his recent absence from the NYT. welcome back.
i trained as a PhD social psychologist; whenever i read the vague handwaving of academic discourse my neck hairs bristle. a "primal" political view means what, exactly? how is "a distraction" (loud music) equivalent to "cognitive load" (a chess midgame)? when conservatism is equated with inebriation, i laugh.
but any concept is fine, provided you have a specific problem you want to answer with it. what is the "primal" problem here?
conservatives seem to know what they believe and don't care what other people think about it; they like "hot" candidates like trump. liberals are less committed but like when others agree with them; they choose lukewarm candidates like biden.
i count myself a "hot" enlightenment liberal: pro science, first amendment rights and open discourse within a shared but multicultural human nature. but i have "it depends" feelings about immigration or cultural diversity.
"knowing what you believe" seems to me a response to increasing social and technical complexity, a complexity that is clearly out of control and will become more unstable as history moves forward. that means control, not "evolutionary luxury", is the issue (james beniger).
i also know that conservatism has been with us since cleon of athens and william james's "toughmindedness," a sea anchor on social change. it may be a species social adaptation, not a "primal" personal trait.
the Grand Old Party has lost its way.
The voting public seems to understand this
Likely, voters will clean house of the GOP to the extent possible.
Hopefully, out of the GOP ashes will rise a GN(ew)P
are based on the traditional values of the Party of
Lincoln. We need a two party system, Not the oligarchy
we seem to have, now.
1
Without fail, Mr. Edsall always has an interesting column. I am fascinated by the behaviour of voters/our fellow citizens. I am most fascinated by why the U.S. regressed to oligarchy after 1980. Yes, I understand the success of the far-right-wing, the Powell Memorandum, Reagan, the 'vast right-wing conspiracy', etc. Still, one can choose not to buy the snake oil from the snake oil salesman. But they did. As a result, many have died and suffered, and we continue to super-heat the planet.
Denmark and Sweden can get it together and have a healthy society; why can't we? Bernie Sanders would be a middle-of the-road guy there. If Republican voters are uneducated brutes or greedy, how do you fix that? If you can't get into power to eliminate the Electoral College, how do you stop minority rule?
2
We see integrity differently. That is the problem in my opinion. People change and ideas of building and nurturing civilizations change as well.
Today NYT has published stories of people who quit their older beliefs and norms. This is inevitable.
The ideas and experiment of demo a itself need further changes in the light of more available knowledge of human behaviour and the success of other systems of governance around the world.
I believe Trump is making a bold attempt to change the world systems that are converging on the root is democracy as we know it with fake news, trade wars, authoritarianism, fanaticism and treachery. It is impossible to fight those forces from a point of vulnerability.
Trump is playing a dangerous engagement that only Christ, Gandhi and Martin Luther King have dared to take on.
Most arguments against defeating terrorist Sulemani’s raise the argument that the world has become more dangerous. Dangerous for whom? It was most dangerous for Trump personally, but he showed the boldness to engage, not withstanding the dangers to himself. No other politician would dare do that.
If Sulemani made it his life’s mission to kill Americans, with open calls to action for 20 years, no one dared take action except Trump. What more proof than the open calls do we need?
Corruption in high places is relevant. Trump may have used his powers of negotiations, which is the right thing to do. That makes him Trump, not Obama.
2
I fall into the category defined and denigrated by Hersh. I also agree with some aspects of that article. However, I consider that fully understanding and thinking deeply about the issues facing our country makes me an informed citizen. And contrary to a conclusion in this article - I WILL VOTE. There is a fallacy in the article suggesting that not being political active implies being politically complacent. Wrong.
2
This article is so interesting. I wonder almost every day why we are where we are today being the political hobbiest that I am. But I don't believe this article considers all those well educated mostly white rich, financially, men who support of Trump. No regulation is certainly one reason but I don't understand how they can sleep at night.
1
Trump persists because of a well-funded network of extreme right wing think tanks and media outlets. There is nothing comparable on the left. The audience for this network is largely although not exclusively relatively poorly educated rural white people. It is this right wing network that explains why America is so different today then during the middle of the 20th century when there was far less polarization and the extreme right wing views that are so prevalent today were marginalized. Vast amounts of money and fanatical dedication to the cause were able to bring the extreme right into the mainstream and now possibly on the verge of making these views dominant through capture of the Republican Party and authoritarian rule.
6
Graduating from college in 1973, with a degree in social psychology, and coming from a liberal family I chose a profession that embodies the essence of "low effort thinking". Much to my white, liberal "talking" , professional college educated parents chagrin, I went into adult custodial corrections. The jail was in Eugene Oregon, home of the University of Oregon and the most liberal county in Oregon. But, I was immediately confronted with a dichotomy, evidenced by most of my co-workers, of degrees of empathy mixed with the heavier hand of arch conservatism. They saw our inmate/charges as 1) responsible for their own predicaments, incapable of rehabilitation, prone to violent behavior, untrustworthy, and generally a drain on society and tax dollars. Their empathy manifested in making sure meals were served, meds handed out to those in need, and risk of assault was minimized by separating offenders according to risk and criminal history. No matter how many people were hired with college degrees, who manifested a more holistic approach, with an emphasis on introducing treatment and educational programs the prevailing culture ( long ingrained in the lifer, low education employees dominated). Some came from the military, some had a high school degree, most couldn't find jobs anywhere else in a depressed logging town. My liberalism mildly wounded, I left after 18 months and switched to a much more receptive non custodial adult corrections career. I left my Trump ers behind.
4
"Bar patrons reported more conservative attitudes as their level of alcohol intoxication increased. Because alcohol limits cognitive capacity and disrupts controlled responding, while leaving automatic thinking largely intact, these data are consistent with our claim that low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism."
Just as I suspected! The GOP is full of low-level thinkers.
1
Bottom feeders predominate among conservative thinkers. It’s the easiest pickings.
There is no mention of today's extreme segmentation influenced by conservative news media in reinforcing conservative group think. While ambivalent liberals are considering activism or not, conservatives seem more energized by the incitement and mendacity of FOX News.
1
Why does he persist?
My retirement fund. My wife's school teacher pension. Our son's college fund.
I see my college students FINALLY finding good paying work after graduating. Black folks, like me, are working good paying jobs, and if we want, we can leave to find another. Don't know the lowest unemployment rates for Black, Latinos, etc. unless you've been without work.
Yes. Those are economic reasons. But after so much bad economic news, you cannot be so unaware to not see this booming economy as a godsend to those further down the economic latter.
He tweets too much. He says too much. And I wish he would work harder to bring folks together. But then again, my fellow Democrats have hated him since day one. So he was never going to be a uniter.
Call his supporters names- Racist, "less" empathetic, etc. It doesn't matter. You've been doing it since he rode down the escalator.
And yet, he persists.
And yet, you continue to wonder why.
3
@profwilliams So, you're saying you're willing to put up with anything as long as you make more money. There were any number of German Jewish business owners and industrialists who supported You-Know-Who because they were looking at their pocketbooks instead of where the country was heading. Look how that turned out.
That’s great you guys are doing just fine! But there’s millions struggling. The economy is working well for the wealthy. There are over three hundred million Americans and ONLY 55 million have a 401K , majority of Americans do not have a dollar in the stock market. And American farmers have been devastated by the Trump Trade War!
"Voters are less tolerant, less empathetic and less interested in integrity than many political analysts thought." [That point became obvious in the summer of 2016.]
The first line shows this Opinion was written by a liberal. The true answer is not that people do not value integrity, it is that "we", in the modern US, have not reached a higher state of humanity than prevailed during the eras of Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great. We are actually still very tribally oriented. Family first, community or tribe second, and outsiders a distant third.
Someone needs to write an article to make young people aware that climate change is up to them and that every vote counts on election day. If they don't get out there and vote then they can only blame their own generation for irreversible climate change. In a democracy everyone who is eligible gets the right to vote and it doesn't matter if you're rich or homeless, you get to vote on election day. When it comes to voting every USA legal citizen is equal.
1
Tribalism vs. openness, poverty as a social problem vs. an individual failure, materialist vs. post-materialist . . . why pretend that we’re having a debate about these issues? People are fed slogans & factoids & lies that provoke shouting matches & anger, preventing thought & dialogue. It’s no accident that we’re divided 50/50. The purpose of our mediated public “conversation,” the terms of which are set by right-wing media & politicians like Trump, is precisely to profit by preventing conversation, to keep people safely locked away in two angry & mutually exclusive world-views. Thus, the people who pay for politicians can do with them as they please.
1
I could not get passed the first few paragraphs, what is "unconstrained diversity"? To me it is saying to a minority, "I realize that I start the race half way to the finish line and you start at the beginning, so to make it more comfortable for both of us, I will only start a quarter of the way ahead of you, and we will tinker with how much of a head start I 'deserve' until we get it just right, else if I am forced to start where you start, there will be backlash". That is complete insanity. Fairness should be the goal and it should not come in drips, it should flow like a river, and that is for the betterment of all society.
While it is true political malcontents would ultimately trace back to the voters - never mind it is collegial and not necessarily populous - some of the democrats (candidates) help.
In this instance, unless he could become president, deep down Bernie would rather have Trump as the president instead of his fellow democrats (ok, so he isn't really a Democrat but he is vying for the nomination) so he could continue to wail against Trump. For crying loud, he has even adopted some of Republican "poison the well" tactics but accusing his fellow candidates via surrogates and then disavowing the accusation. He used to be an angry progressive but now he is just angry. Too bad he has a huge following. With candidates like him, of course Trump persists!
“On the political left they may say they fear Donald Trump. They may lament polarization. But they are pretty comfortable with the status quo.”
I have never met anyone even vaguely on the “left” who was “comfortable” with even those on the Trump-supporting “right” dying for lack of adequate healthcare. I don’t however, see much of the same kind of empathy that crosses political lines coming from “the right.”
1
Bottom line here is that an activated minority can have an outsized effect on political outcomes. This is evident from the Bolsheviks in 1917 to the Tea Party of 2010. Maybe it’s not enough to just vote through the noise. But at least do that.
Why Trump persists? For all of your interesting points, sir, I believe you have missed the one factor that matters. Sadly, it is a factor that mainstream media are ill-equipped to examine.
And that is religion. Trump persists because white conservative evangelicalism will support him no matter what he does. He keeps them in power, or rather the illusion of it; how he does so is irrelevant to them, even if it means breaking every law, and the very moral code of the Bible itself.
The mainstream church rejects utterly this false bargain between Christian faith and sheer falsehood. They argue—rightly—that the truth of the gospel is at stake.
Trump is in power because of white conservative evangelicalism. Until they are defeated: theologically by the confessing church, electorally at the ballot box; he will remain so.
That is the story that needs to be covered.
1
Political "scientists" are not scientists. nor are psychologists. More to the point, religion, unfocused rage, "persecution" delusions, and plain bigotry are not adequately addressed.
The most basic disagreement is that some people see 'diversity' as a value unto itself, and the lack of diversity as an objective problem that needs fixing. Others do not.
For example, most progressives seem to believe that if a country is almost exclusively inhabited by white people of the same ethnicity, that is self-evidently wrong, a clear sign of racism and something that urgently calls for active efforts to bring as many non-white people as possible into that country to fix its abhorrent lack of diversity.
Others believe that it's perfectly fine that a country where historically no non-white people existed, remains that way. And has no obligation whatsoever to allow immigration, let alone encourage it.
(The same would be true for a country in Africa that has only black people, although this issue does not come up in practical terms because nobody wants to immigrate there.)
2
For a substantial number of Americans politics has devolved to little more than an opportunity to vent their cruelty, something akin to showtime at the Roman Colosseum with Emperor Trumpus ready with his thumbs. A harsh, degraded culture certainly. On the verge of collapse? I don't think so. Regeneration will come about via the impetus of reality which will hit like a freight train one day.
3
Fox news, political talk radio, and the lies on the internet are together contributing to the deterioration of this nation. They are being used to appeal to an uninformed public that like Trump, knows little of this nation’s history, or how it’s government functions. It is brainwashing on a massive scale, that keeps their viewers and listeners afraid of people that don’t look like them. They tell them to fear progressives, that if allowed, would actually improve their lot in life.
Instead, they are taught to believe those that destroy their healthcare system, gut funding for their children’s educations, discourage higher education with exorbitant interest on student loans, fail to increase the minimum wage, and cut taxes for the wealthy, who, unknown to these people, control their government not with votes, but with unlimited cash to bribe politicians. The wealthy overwhelmingly are these people’s oppressors, but the fox propaganda machine keeps their followers misinformed, afraid, and angry. They cheer on republican lawmakers as they destroy their means of acquiring a better life.
The republican party has the easy job of breaking things, and governing for the sake of the wealthy. Democrats have the harder job of building things, and bettering the lives of their constituents. This election will tell us whether this republic will survive, or perish. The choice is yours.
The system has been corrupted to the roots. Dirty money dictates what, when and how. Waal street destroyed the American middle class and not a single meaningful system law or regulation has been proposed let alone passed. The economy is composed of 60% hourly waged workers, complemented by consulting white collar jobs. There’s no security. A reason why Bloomberg is running to destroy Sen. Warren a person with real proposals to fix the system. It’s why Alan Dershowitz is working on Trump’s impeachment defense team. Trump talks the talk, but is so corrupt that he’s made things worst. Sheldon Adelson loves him though.
A final dagger into the myth of American Exceptionalism. Americans, like people anywhere, are subject to “low effort” voting or thinking which is code language for acting out of fear and ignorance. Jimmy Kimmel provided less scientific but more chilling evidence of American ordinary-ness. In a segment of “Lie Witness News”, people were asked what they thought about the new law banning foreigners with beards from the US. Everyone shown agreed it was a good idea, all saying anything to keep us safe is a good idea. One of Trump’s long-lasting ‘promises made, promises kept’ is raising the fear and ignorance level of Americans.
GOP enablers have a perfect defense- the president can abuse his powers in any way he wants if he is attempting reelection, and impeachment should be a means to raise lots of campaign money and not to remove Trump.
They do not care if he violated minor laws on campaign ethics or extortion of public employees and foreign leaders to do his bidding if that gets him reelected. Every GOP President except maybe Gerald Ford did it since Eisenhower. So what?
Since Democrats were unwilling to follow Pelosi's command that all roads lead to Putin and charge Trump with treason or colluding with an enemy, the trial will get dismissed or end in acquittal.
We already have a replacement Senator from Georgia with tons of money (Her husband bought her seat)who is now advertising her support for dismissal of the "circus" that is the impeachment trial after taking an oath to be impartial. She is right out of FOX News with her blonde hair, good looks and no brains. See Kelly Loeffler Twitter feed.
1
This has interesting and hopefully useful insights on tribalism. But to fully understand the rise of Trump, I recommend Paul Krugman's decades of describing how this occurred. The GOP promoted racism, ignorance, theocracy (concerning abortion and for many years evolution) and bigotry while not intending to fully deliver, playing its base for fools. And Krugman has described the crucial money connections: Republicans in Congress have found that their buns are much better buttered if they choose corruption and eschew principles.
2
I'll tell you why Trump's supporters stick by him despite his falsehoods and outrages. It is because the media has let liberal politicians get away with lies (and outrages to some extent) for so long. Trump's supporters (BTW, I am not one of them) are not bothered by his lies. In fact, they like him more because he lies. They say to themselves, "Now WE have a politician who can get away with lying. We finally have a politician that refuses to play on unlevel playing field." They may not always articulate this out loud, but often they do. They cheer Trump when he says something outrageous, and they cheer even more when his critics have a meltdown over it. And they revel in the fact that Trump has a roaring economy and has not gotten us into another war, and with some justification dismiss all the anti-Trump doomsayers.
I know right now you are saying that Democrats have not been given a pass, but your wrong. I could write an entire dissertation on it, but let's just take one poignant example. What Candy Crowley did during the debate between Romney and Obama was unconscionable, but the media rushed to defend her. She inserted herself into the debate to falsely declare that Obama was right. If the media had been fair to Romney, he might have won, and Trump would never been elected. The media gave us Trump.
1
I, for one, am growing weary of electoral analyses like these, in which "liberals'' are faulted for their failing to be more sympathetic to Trump supporters. This article is a great example. So we can't have a civilized debate on immigration because of liberals' unwillingness to accept Trumpkins' position on the subject without labeling them racists? What labels should we use to describe people who support tearing children from their parents, locking people in cages, and letting at least seven children die in US custody by denying them medical attention? Please provide us some alternative labels; after all, we do want to be "politically correct.''
1
What do you think is an adequate standard of living for an American citizen, as a right of birth?
What do we owe one another?
Have we met the needs of the people already here?
Call the people who are concerned about immigration, fellow Americans.
See how that could work?
1
Not to mention the fact that you never see anti-immigrant screeds against white Europeans, whether they are here legally or illegally.
Most voters believe what their elected officials tell them, after all they represent their Districts and State. Reading their official Facebook pages is a revelation in how successful, damaging, prevalent and the lengths generated towards deception. Should those Republicans state the facts that Trump's policies are not in their best interests the tide would turn. Lifting regulations will not create jobs, the tax laws did not benefit the working class, in fact would be reduced each year and expire in five, alienating allies placed National Security at risk, Russia did interfere in the 2016 election. Trump lies, denies is corrupt, unethical, and the US has loss credibility domestically and internationally. A serial victim is not a leader, they never face their actions have consequences. We used the term, "teachers pet", for the kid who repeatedly ran and complained about ill treatment in school. They always neglected to relay they instigated the confrontation from inappropriately running their mouth, something their parents failed to teach them. Words can be as damaging as a punch.
A stunning absence in the arguments made here is the effect of massively inaccurate information. Upper class educated democrats think they know about poverty but in fact, know almost nothing but what has been handed to them by other educated upper middle class educated pundits, professors and other mouthpieces tell them. Very much like the ones presented here in this article.
I myself would probably be among them except for the fact that I happen to be an educated middle class raised liberal but faced the struggle to stay there until succumbing to near poverty.
First hand experience has told me conclusively that the talking heads professing about the lower classes know absolutely nothing about what it really means to be poor, and insulate themselves from having to know the truth with research like this.
They ignore the poor right beneath their noses every time they go to the grocery store, speak to a customer service representative, purchase something from Amazon--and whine, complain, and report people who are treated like caged chicken laying eggs, with poor benefits, mandatory overtime for months on end and still can't pay their bills.
They would never put up with what the other half has to and deal with it by ignoring, insulation and denial to the point of cruelty.
Want to defeat trump? Stop being cruel to people whose lives you've ignored all your life, snubbed, and by a thousand paper cuts keep beneath you in every way imaginable.
9
I have been excoriated many times on these comments pages here when I wrote that Obama paved the way for Trump during his second term.
Now I feel vindicated.
Lasting political change in a democracy comes in small steps, because it takes time to naturally grow the attitude required to sustain it. Liberals don’t see that. They prefer to hit us on the head with a hammer to drive in their dogmas. Trump is the result of that intolerance.
2
No, Trump is the result of white reactionary intolerance. They voted for Trump because they could not stand to have a president who does not look like them, could not stand progress, could not deal with change. Of course you love this column as it vindicates your reactionary right world view, but that doesn’t make it correct. A rightwing echo chamber is still a closed, and closed-minded, system.
@Renee Margolin No! Trump is the result of Clinton's disastrous campaign. Wit everyone rooting for her and odds at a certainty she ignored the workforce ( traditional Dem voters) and ran on issues most likely to enrage them - identity issues and the rights of immigrant workers. She also appeared extremely aggressive regarding diplomacy
Excellent! Finally a focus on the voters. I am tired of reading about the hear-no-evil see-no-evil Republican legislators and their allegiance to Trump. Mr. Edsall is getting to the reason for this loyalty and the pressures on the officials to be tribal. It all makes sense and the get out the vote edge goes to the angry rather than guilt motivated voters.
1
I am increasingly convinced the pundits on the coast live in a bubble. Edsal and "Many political analysts" seem to have or had not a clue that there are a subset of Americans painted broadly as male, white, older less educated and living mostly in non metro areas that have been waiting for a racist, xenophobic, ignorant and proud of it, misogynist and homophobic Republican candidate from at least 1964.
Since Reagan the Republican candidates have sotto voce whispered those ideas but after being elected failed to follow through.
Trump has delivered in spades.
If Edsal lived where we live he and the political analysts would not be surprised at all.
A glance at the county map of the USA after the 2016 election would have told them all they needed to know.
1
The elephant in the room that the Times refuses (thus far) to accept posts on is media abuse and tribalized disinformation. Though FOX and talk radio are most notable in feeding the far-right, liberals nd corporate media re part of the problem as well As Wisconsin poet Ed Werstein writes in the Blue Collar Review:
Fox news exists for the purpose
of getting some of us to accept
what we're told by CNN.
I'm glad it's not that bad, we say.
CNN exists for the purpose
of getting some of us to accept
the news reports on MSNBC,
which exists to make what's reported
on NPR and in the New York Times
seem a relief by comparison,
which in turn make the Rachel Maddow
Show more believable. But in reality,
it's way worse than we can imagine.
The public's consent to the present
situation is spun in the spinning
of whatever we are inclined
to accept as truth. Whereas the truth
of the matter is way worse than we know.
The truth is that it is all fake news.
The persistent blizzard of lies and slurs coming from the president has closed people's ears and distorted their vision. The degradation of pubic discourse and its replacement with streams of vitriol, fed to people's electronic portals, has corroded what was once a kind of clarity about truth and lies.
I hope there is an awakening, a new way for a new voice to tumble the tumbleweed of lies that has corrupted once was once a democratic process.
Yes, an awful lot of liberal people are really only political dilettantes. That must be admitted. You don't say anything about what has caused this phenomenon--could it possibly be electronic media and Facebook? Weren't people much more politically engaged before the Bowling Alone syndrome set in? If everyone turned off their televisions and closed their Facebook accounts, is there aby real doubt thqt we'd all be vastly Better off?
On the other side, it's worth pondering what one of your scholars said about how education breeds tolerance. So is it true then that wallowing in ignorance tends to lead people to support Trump? Is that why he said, "I love the poorly educated?" What can we, as a society, do, then, to boost prevailing educational levels?
"The failure of the American electorate to rise up in opposition to President Trump..."
Correction...the failure of Democrats to capitalize and convince the ~55% of the electorate which loathes Trump to get behind Democrats and turnout in droves is the real paradox here. Self inflicted wounds.
55%...it's right there for the taking. Forget about the other 45% of the country.
1
It's really simple and does not require a lot of analysis, although some of what is presented here is mildly interesting:
Trump persists because the GOP cheats at everything.
This cheating is the foundation to what I've called the "white man's rules": I make the rules; I interpret the rules; and, if necessary I will change the rules if they aren't working out for me. These rules are playing out in real time right now in the Senate. McConnell must recite them every night before he goes to bed.
This is a surprise to absolutely no one. We are not "better than this". (Sorry Elijah Cummings).
We're No. 1? Get real.
God bless America.
1
The way I see it: liberals or progressives are idealists. They see the issues the world faces and want to help improve them. They realise this will invariably involve change but are willing to embrace that. They want to be part of that change. Oftentimes they lead it.
Conservatives on the other hand are cynics who fear change. It means they will have to give up something which is important to them. They feel they have 'worked hard' for their place in the sun and don't want to give up an inch to allow someone else to benefit. They are inherently selfish and inward-looking. Many purport to be Christians but really they are the opposite of Christian. I have in my own family people like this. They emigrated to Britain and lead a very good life but they voted FOR Brexit. They don't seem to see the irony in this.
Selfishness will ultimately be the end of the human race. It seems to be incredibly difficult for some people to share their good fortune with the less fortunate. Even billionaires want to resist paying more taxes. Companies worth billions do everything to avoid paying their fair share. This selfishness will be our undoing.
'Take this bread, if you need it, friend
Cause I'm alright if you're alright
I ain't got a lot, but all I got
You're welcome to it
Cause I'm alright if you're alright.'
The Felice Brothers, Take This Bread
1
Yesterday, a friend was talking about her ex who is a Republican. He has made 6,000,000 dollars playing the stock market over the past 20 years. He has paid .006 percent of that in taxes.
The worker who makes 60,000 dollars pays on average 21%+ of what he earns annually to US taxes.
That`s why we have inequality. The tax system favors the wealthy. The system is corrupt and broken.
3
Ten prominent families have put 1.2 billion dollars into US elections in the last decade. That tells you a lot.
1
How many times have you heard a politician opine that 'voters are smart', that they get it, and will not let some wrongdoing stand? Sorry, but while many voters are informed, too many others get their news and information upon which to make an informed judgement from character limited sources; echo chamber media outlets that spew thoughts that likely echo their own; social media sites that admit permitting falsehoods; or conspiatorial sources. Tin foil lined hats seem to be their headgear of choice.
And isn't it ironic that this nation has such hostile or ambivalent feelings about immigration, race, religion, social equality, fairness and the like when, unless you can document direct, uninterrupted lineage to Native Americans, we are all immigrants. The ultimate hypocrisy wouldn't you say?
The new left (hard left, social justice warriors, whatever you want to call them) is quite illiberal. They argue that people are nothing other than their race, gender, and sexual orientation, locked in a massive, perpetual war of us vs them in which some people are, solely by virtual of their identity, either victims or oppressors. And they are involved in a massive project to cast people with white skin as the oppressors of history and to hold all white people today accountable for things that happened 400 years ago.
At the same time, white middle and working class people are, like people everywhere, feeling the pressure from the global economy and are watching their livelihoods disappear.
Telling these people that they are “privileged” that they must have their “privilege” taken away from them (through reparations), and that they are racists if they disagree with the left (or they are racists simply for being white), is political suicide on a national level. There are better, more positive, more effective ways to address racism.
The majority of people in the US who make less that 50K a year voted for Hilary Clinton, not Trump in 2016. But, as Orwell might put it, that fact has gone "down the memory hole".
1
This is how a post democracy system of unlimited money in politics works. Yes, we are to blame insofar as we allow it to go on. But this impeachment trial in the Senate is a clear illustration of a system representing a post truth culture driven by a majority of Senators who represent being owned by this unlimited money. The grassroots movement to overturn the 2020 Citizens United ruling of corporate person hood and money as free speech is alive and well and growing. While this anti-democracy system is in place we are observing the lawless rule of those who place special interests above the nation.
Secondly, we are dealing with a president whose behavior is much like those who are criminally insane. It is the type that is infectious - paranoid, narcissistic, and a pathological liar. America's psychiatrists tell of it in their multiple works of "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump." America is failing to address mental health, starting in the current oval office.
This is the storm that drives this administration - the financial mechanism of unlimited corporate money, and a criminally insane president who is used to advance their private interests over and against the citizens of this nation.
Finally, it will be up to the people who observe this mock trial, to awaken to the fact that truth and justice are being replaced by a totalitarian system. And this system and its' representatives need to be replaced in November's election.
1
Anyone who doubts the evolutionary origin of tribalism should be reminded that the human genome has far less diversity than any other primate. Inter group warfare has raged since before our first Australopithecus ancestors ruled the plains. Liberalism is indeed a luxury; it’s the rare triumph of intellect over instinct which is less likely to occur in times of scarcity.
As the four walls of overpopulation, increasingly abrupt climate change, resource depletion and extreme wealth concentration close in, pushing scarcity ever higher, unfortunately it’s a “natural” enough direction for politics to take.

Important mention of Americans’ lack of interest in integrity.
This is evident in all aspects of life, not just politics.
And the addiction to celebrity culture, consumerism etc.
Folks will wait on line for Shake Shack or stampede at Black Friday but can’t be bothered to put garbage in a trash can or vote.
In the meantime, “Ultimate Fighting Championship star Conor McGregor celebrated President Trump as “quite possibly” the greatest president in American history....calling Trump a "phenomenal president"
Terrifying.
1
As a young child growing up in Indiana in the early ‘50’s, my mother had a pronounced German accent and, although she was born in Chicago, was frequently discriminated against, and told to “go back where she came from”. Thankfully, my parents soon moved from such ugly narrow mindedness to the San Francisco Bay Area, where we have thrived ever since amidst its cultural freedom, tolerance and diversity ever since.
A decidedly conservative visitor to San Francisco recently told me, “Every time I come here, I feel like I’m in a foreign port”. In other words, the people all “look different,” and are tolerant and have a live-and-let-live attitude. I thought to myself, when I’m here, which is 24/7, I feel like I’m comfortably home.
These two anecdotes dramatically illustrate the gist of your analysis, Mr. Edsall, and demonstrate that the seeds of our current “great” divide have always been with us. A local independent senior living facility touts its “progressive, intelligent and caring” residents. I often joke that, in other parts of the country, such places must proclaim their “reactionary, stupid and unsympathetic” neighbors. And so it goes.
The writer quotes a study which states..'these data are consistent with our claim that low effort thinking promotes political conservatism.' Yup, that pretty much sums it up. The entire article could have been that one line.
"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they'd be Republicans." Will Rogers.
1
Yet another overly intellectual explanation of old viewpoints. Conservatives think the poor are lazy and to blame for their own impoverishment. Really? Let’s address the elephant in the article. Conservatives (majority white) think the poor (to them, Blacks and Latinos/as) are lazy and don’t want to work. Racism at its basest level is manifested in the belief among whites who are on the lowest rung of the socio-economic ladder, believe that they are above people of color no matter how high they are on the socio-economic ladder. This belief works in tandem with their lack of self-realization that many of them live in communities that are just as impoverished (if not more so) than many communities of color and have a worse drug problem (opioids) as well.
The GOP and conservative media have nurtured this “blindness” and fed it a steady diet of “look over there and blame those people” for the past 30 years. It is no coincidence that the rise of conservative media (first, with talk radio and then with Fox News) happened at the same time these rural white communities were being displaced in the workforce, going bankrupt due to health issues and abusing opioids. They were literally at home more and in despair. They tuned into Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reily, Robertson etc., everyday and were given scapegoats. They cultivated the already inherit biases of many and have redefined conservatism. First it was the Tea Party and now it has reached its epoch with Trump and McConnell.
1
"suggests that voters are less tolerant, less empathetic and less insistent on integrity than many believe." Or maybe we have all lost faith in politicians in general and just don't care what they do because they all do the same thing. The actual differences to our lives between Mrs Clinton winning in 2016 and Casino Mussolini winning are minor. Every single one of our elected representatives is corrupt to one degree or another or an enabler of the corrupt. They should all be dismissed and the constitution rewritten. We could get along just fine without any of them.
A bigger issue then whether white, college-educated liberals are really politically committed, is whether the Democrats will nominate a candidate who will energize African-American voters to turn out, like Obama did and Hillary Clinton didn't.
That cost her the election more than white, working class desertions.
Trump persists because misinformation from Fox propaganda (etc) gives his supporters the false impression that Trump is doing a good job, that he's a genius, that he's unfairly maligned, etc. One cannot have a serious conversation about this without addressing this misinformation network. Impose the old Fairness doctrine on any of these sources of information and Trump would be gone within weeks. Furthermore, he never would have been elected without that misinformation propping him up and falsely criticizing Clinton.
1
Many thanks for the detailed, thoughtful analysis. I disagree, however.
Our biggest problem is Trump's base, not whether liberals are insufficiently committed. The Women's March, the midterms, impeachment polling, and the unprecedented numbers of people protesting in Congress and congressional offices coast-to-coast are the evidence that liberal and moderate America is horrified.
What needs to be solved is how to unhook the propaganda and brainwashing from the minds of an enormous class of undereducated, highly resentful, economically challenged whites who have yet to get over the Civil War. We need to make our politics real for them, because they appear to believe this is a MMA/WWF cage match and not a situation where nuclear war, global warming, devolution of civil liberties and destruction of democracy by a rogue GOP has brought us to the brink of fascism.
This article makes no distinction between what people believe about reality and actual reality. The most resistance to immigration exists in communities with no immigrants, not communities with a few immigrants as suggested. The average income of Trump supporters in the 2016 election was higher than the average income of Clinton supporters. Crime was at an all-time low in America when Trump was elected. Clearly it was neither threat from outsiders nor scarcity nor actual danger that motivated Trump voters. It was all perception, fostered by fake news and Russian bots.
1
Edsall's columns (and Ken-Ken) are worth the price of my subscription.
We so look forward to balance, and his writings personify this.
But maybe it is because we are people who can believe that the answer to Why are Some Americans Poor is "all of the above."
This aligns with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. We all tend to be more selfish when we believe the basics of life are threatened. It is one of the reasons Republicans have always exaggerated threats from crime, and "terrorism", and why no amount of economic recovery during the Obama Administration could get them to stop talking about how bad the economy was. Ginning up fear is far easier, and far more susceptible to soundbites than more complex, compassionate broadmindedness.
1
Your point is well taken. However, Mr. Obama failed utterly at the perceptions game. Where or where was the giant sweepstakes check when GM paid US taxpayers FIVE BILLION DOLLARS as _early_ repayment (with interest) of Obama’s rescue (over Repubic opposition!) loan? Facts are one thing, perception another... Both _can_ play this game, but only the Repubics are doing so.
I have never seen a Trump voter/Republican turn red in the face or scream about immigrants from Canada or, ummm, Norway. To ignore that racism is a driving force - nay, "the" driving force - behind their attitudes is to ignore reality.
Voting blue in 2020 will show us who we really are. If you are concerned use your available time to work on voter registration and voter turnout. Voting will save the republic.
Your vote in 2020 is the most important vote you will ever make.
2
Why is any of this surprising? The sad truth is that the majority of white America believes black and brown people are below them...in culture, business acumen, social norms, standardized test scores, and on and on.
If you believe that, empathy and concern only go so far. White Americans firmly believe this is their country. They built it, they maintain it, they fight for it.
It's deeply wrong and unjust. And will likely never change.
. . . but very few white liberals are actively engaging in face-to-face political organizations, committing their time to fighting for racial equality or any other issue . . .
More than just a tad harsh. A couple has full-time jobs, raising kids, maybe also taking care of an elder relative. Perhaps they are active in a local volunteer group, religious or otherwise. They just don't have the time or energy to be a marching, protesting, door-knocking advocate. Now, if they don't find the time to vote, well that does deserve admonishment.
Thank you, Mr. Edsall. A fascinating column. You served up a huge breakfast for me. :)
There is one possibility—a very real one—that the author of this op-ed and ALL the scholars he cites are wrong. How wrong? Profoundly wrong. Not just in some details of their analysis or logic but in a way that is fundamental; that the lens through which they view reality is wrong. They view reality through the old prism--the prism of anthropocentrism. Liberalism is anthropocentric. Anthropocentrism is ultimately wrong. Humans are merely products of evolution driven by the process of creation that sustains our universe. This process is primary to humans and to everything else; and this process works on universal inclusion. This is the point from which reality must be viewed. How is this related to the behavior of voters? Anthropocentrism works on exclusion. It perpetuates exclusion. The liberal political practice is exclusionary. Our intellectual elites, including the author of this piece, the scholars he cites, and this newspaper are exclusionary. No matter how skillful the elites may be, no matter how civil and even humane they may be in practicing exclusion, exclusion still reveals its shabby appearance. Exclusion leads to domination and disempowerment. People want to be included and empowered. There is just no way around it. We are on the threshold of a new era, but the elites obstinately continue to look toward the past. They will end up in the only place fit for them: the dustbin of history. God's ways maybe mysterious but they are not unintelligible.
There is a lot to unpack here, but as is so often the case the lack of tolerance is front and center. Danielle Allen, in a recent essay for The Atlantic, calls for unity ( https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/danielle-allen-american-citizens-serfdom/600778/ ). I would not expect that to happen barring some overwhelming external threat. It will be hard enough to improve our general abilities to tolerate others and other opinions.
We do not talk face to face much any more. Most highlighted communication is via online media or cable news silos. The situation Mr. Edsall presents dovetails well with another NYTs piece from a couple days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/opinion/twitter-democratic-debate.html ("What Do Swing Voters Think? Meet @American__Voter").
Donald Trump ran for his office because he had no idea what else to do with his life. Ditto Mitt Romney. I don’t think anyone remotely knows what McConnell and Graham are interested in outside of politics. All the women I know in their 60s are retiring to enjoy life while still contributing to society which raises the question – why is Susan Collins running? Could the answer be she has no other interests?
The GOP supporters have withdrawn from the world and are withdrawing from anyone who has a difference of opinion. There are some Trump voters who vote their pocketbooks but most just have withdrawn so deep into their shells that politics has become their whole life, When politics is your whole life – racism, bigotry, misogyny, dictatorships, abuse of power, and obstruction of justice become acceptable.
There’s virtually no interest in the GOP in art, theater, dance, movies, TV, humor that isn’t offensive, reading, travel, nor science. They’re dull. At best a few like country music, though when was the last time you heard a Republican cite a song?
This is not an equivalency game. There are no tribes. One side is just boring. One side has withdrawn so much that denying climate change has become an option because most, like Trump, are already spiritually and emotionally dead.
I take it from this that the very real lack of any meaningful financial progress for many Americans pushes them to take more conservative stances than they might if they were more economically 'comfortable' and secure in that reality. OK, nothing new here; but what about an environment in which politicians inflate insecurity in their 'base' in order to continue to increase that very inequality. "They" are taking your jobs. "They" are coming for your guns". "They" will soon make you a minority in your own nation and impose sharia law on you and your family...
1
Or, as William Golding put it, most people think they are thinking, but really they are FEELING. One of the comments about Mr. Obama was that he could always be trusted to be the adult in the room. However, he was left enough for the leftists and too African American and "foreign" for the right.
So, I guess the point I'm supposed to get here is that what we really want is to, on the one hand, get our pickaxes and burn down the lab, on the other we all want to teach the world to sing, and expecting critical thinking is just misunderstanding human evolution?
1
Lost me on the opening sentence.
How can the writer see voters as "less tolerant" when 40% of them - Trump's base - not only tolerate but celebrate his every foul move??
Less insistent on integrity, *for sure.*
Less tolerant...? Makes no sense. And the rest of the article didn't support the point either.
1
I think you're assuming that people "should" be pursuing liberal values and cultural Marxism, but that's a very lofty proposition divorced from our evolutionary adaptations, and it doesn't help that the left is militantly shoving it down people's throats without much consideration for traditional values and our evolutionary programming which is there for a reason.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress
Tags: american-dream, misattributed-to-john-steinbeck
1
I have friends who grew up in the Czech republic who say they have a phrase roughly translated as "from over the hill". People who are thus described are suspicious. A colleague from Ukraine said they had a similar phrase which was "from across the bridge".
What is poignant is that both are flourishing as immigrants to the United States. An example of diversity strengthening society.
Why does Trump persist? Because on immigration in particular he is pushing policy positions that a substantial majority of Americans agree with. Most of the people who support him are not explicitly racist and many of them dislike both him as a person and the language he uses; nearly all object to separating families and putting kids in cages.
But he crassly embodies the position that American citizens should have more rights in America than non-citizens. And to most Americans, even lifetime liberals like myself, that position (buffed out with nice rhetoric embracing our diverse citizenry) should be a foundation premise for every American politician. How we treat non-citizens is open to discussion, but the idea that American citizens should have more rights in our own country should not be.
Democrats have allowed themselves to be painted as more concerned about being good global citizens than good American citizens and that is the single specific reason the hideous Donald Trump has a decent chance of being re-elected.
Democrats, you can embrace diversity and giving preference to American citizens at the same time. It's not inconsistent. Do some polling. It's a winner.
261
When I first began hearing the charges that Dems favor "open borders," I was annoyed. I thought it was clearly hyperbolic rhetoric. But if that crude sound bite doesn't covey a whole truth, it does point in the direction of one. In California I absolutely see and hear people who want to collapse the distinction between "citizen" and "foreigner," and it amazes me that they don't seem to realize they're playing with fire.
57
Immigration? Most opposition to immigration that Trump exploits are in states which are not seeing a lot of demographic shifts due to immigration. I live in Los Angeles. The demographics are far different than when I was a youth. I know that what Trump runs on is not based upon reality but upon fear of the unknown. Simple ignorance.
We do not enforce our immigration laws reasonably. Business people, mostly Republicans, are the ones who want illegal immigration because they can cheat with impunity. We need immigrants to maintain a reliable work force. Most people who come here with their families are sincerely interested in fitting in and becoming like us. There are many problems but Trump is not addressing them honestly.
80
@Mad Moderate "Because on immigration in particular he is pushing policy positions that a substantial majority of Americans agree with."
This is simply not true. The majority of Americans do not support his tax cuts for the rich, possibly Trump's most substantial "achievement."
And the majority of Americans' taxes have NOT been reduced drastically, but their insurance premiums have shot through the roof under this president.
Unfortunately, the majority of Americans don't pay close attention. They blame Obama for the insurance rates and revel in Trump's rhetoric.
43
I could not disagree with your position more. The American political divide is not the result of ambivalence. Voter views on certain critical issues gave us Trump. Racial divide is the paramount issue. Millions of racist American voters were outraged at Obama's election. They could not accept the fact that America had elected a Black president. Conversations with friends and relatives reveal a not so concealed animosity for Blacks. Anti-LGBTQ attitudes also caused many to support Trump, as did anti-immigrant sentiments. Religious intolerance is another major factor, and explains why Trump postures himself as a zealot when he knows little about Christianity. Visit predominantly White areas and speak to the residents. The conversations are frightening. I just returned from a visit to a west coast Florida city with a burgeoning population- a virtually all White population. There were no Blacks, Asians, Latinos or Jews. The people flocking to the area were ethnically homogeneous and were moving to the area to reside with like citizens. Trump signs were frequently displayed. It is time for commentators to recognize the importance of the racial divide in America and to suggest ways to resolve this most critical issue.
213
Wrong. Trump won because black oriole did NOT vote in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio. Again: 4,000,000 black and brown people who voted for Obama, sat at home on Nov 4. Had nothing to do with Racism, it was black voter apathy.
17
@Disillusioned
There are many cities in which Hispanics are literally 100% of the population. You say whites are "bad people" for moving to areas where people just like them. But, in cities like Hialeah and Hialeah Gardens both of which are in Florida. The population of those 2 cities are like 100% Hispanics.... So it is okay if Hispanics do it but not Whites??? Also Hispanic is not even a race. Half of Hispanics in this country are White Hispanics and that includes me as well....
15
@Bee
Whew - I'm glad that's settled! I'd been assuming it was the result of a set of factors - thanks for making everything simple for us!
12
Ronald Reagan was popular but he was not a thinker. He made the Republican Party over and it’s never recovered. It seeks power and opposes anything which would reduce that power. But it is an organization that does not consider reality as reality presents itself but with slogans and attitudes that Reagan asserted to be the secrets to a perfect polity, completely ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
There is and always was plenty of evidence that Reagan’s ideas were misguided and not well considered. His tax cuts produced deficits not a revival of the post WWII boom economy. The shift of wealth to the wealthy to create a lot of capital investment did not help domestic growth. In fact, it helped global growth to distract from domestic spending on minimal maintenance of our public infrastructure. It also stagnated the sharing of new wealth with 90 percent of the population in this country.
Trump’s hold over Republicans, his divisiveness, his ham handed governance, his trillion dollar debt tax cuts, and the startling fact that wealth inequity is undermining our country all came from Reagan’s ideas which Reagan took from politically reactionary business executives at corporations or which he had worked as a spokesman. Those ideas tended to advance plutocracy and theocracy, not democracy.
2
Is it possible that Trump's base voters are afflicted with a sense of grievance and suspicions of others as less-deserving because they are NOT secure in their own economic circumstances despite his repeated boasts that thanks to his policies, their economic circumstances have never been better?
In the banking collapse and Depression of the 1930s, and the resulting popularity of FDR with his optimistic promises of "A New Deal," along with expanded government (deficit) spending, led to a tide of Democratic majorities and conversion to liberalism. Perhaps we are beginning to witness generations who do not expect wealth to trickle down from Republican majorities in D.C. and in red states.
Democrats won the House in 2018 and succeeded in impeaching the President, but because of a lag in political terms, Trump will lose the battle for conviction in the Senate. However, Democrats will have the chance to surge again and win the War in November.
Edsall cites "the inherent tension" and "glaring levels" of income inequality as those that pose big problems in keeping the Democratic coalition together. Maybe that's part of the problem but the rigged electoral system is a much bigger problem. Remember Hillary got three million more votes than Trump, and lost; and Gore got a quarter of a million more votes than Bush II and was defeated. That, much more than any weaknesses of the Democratic coalition account for these ridiculous Republican victories.
180
@samg
I agree with the messed up electoral system. But if we didn't have the electoral college and Hillary had therefore won on a plurality of votes, we'd still be a nation dangerously riven by the issues being discussed here ... if not not more so.
5
@samg
Excellent reasons to support the National Popular Vote movement. Google it.
5
@samg
Gore got 544,000 votes more than Bush II in 2000
3
I question the general assumption that "education" is a foil against illiberalism. The smartest man I know, an degreed engineer who holds several patents and was a state legislator, is the most illiberal and conservative of my friends.
Today we are underfunding education while demanding performance, teaching to a test, and emphasizing STEM. Something had to give, and it is history, civics, literature. I fear we will pay a terrible price for this.
3
While I enjoy diving into all the nuances that govern conservative-vs.-liberal thinking and behavior, there’s a much simpler explanation. As my college political-science professor would say, the “Four ‘Fs” of paleo-survival are, “Foraging, Fighting, Fleeing, and Reproduction.” Assuming that most Americans have enough to eat, this can be distilled down to the two most primal emotions: fear and reproduction.
Fox News is a prime example of exploiting those primal emotions for both commercial and political success. As Roger Ailes himself said, their MO is, “Fear, titillate; fear, titillate.” And they do it well: Instill fear and you can get people to do almost anything—elect Trump, for example. The fact that (almost) all the star women on Fox are tall, blond, loaded with makeup, and wear short skirts (the “Bombshell” look) is no accident, either.
I agree that education is key. Oh, and by the way, traveling: It becomes harder and harder to feel threatened by people who are different from you when you spend more time around them. Importing refugees is one way, but traveling works, too.
215
@David Walker why travel? Mass immigration is working in Paris so well. One of the main reasons after visiting London that I changed from Democrat to Trump.
1
@David Walker
Yay! Travel vouchers for all! It’d actually help broaden perspectives.
1
@David Walker I agree travelling works to open your mind but you see people like DJTJ who claims to have travelled the world but yet is pretty parochial in his thinking, it's weird. I see Americans married to people from other countries living there as a resident and being highly conservative too, which is weird for me (their positions on many things are hypocritical).
Trump himself is a great example. He married a "foreigner" and did all the things he rails against others for doing.
3
Abortion is a perfect example of simplistic thinking on the right. They can’t seem to handle the complexity of the fact that two lives are involved when a girls gets pregnant and that humane policy requires balancing the protection of both lives, a balance that shifts throughout pregnancy as Roe vWade held. That’s how we have extremist Republican Party positions that would outlaw abortion with no exceptions, not even to save the life of the pregnant person, and would outlaw IUDs and morning after pills that prevent implantation of fertilized eggs. Republicans in Congress are getting more extremist on questions like this, perhaps because Fox News discourages any thinking at all.
4
Trump, for his populist blather, is the ultimate gift to corporate America. Destroy the regulatory state...they gave him so much hassle when he tried to build, and no doubt, his tax lawyers aren't cheap. He has no real ideology, he will embrace anyone who will keep him in power, so he doesn't care but will preach to the base. He'll appoint whoever he is told to as a Judge, so the Courts are stacked. The alleged moral leaders like him. and tell the gullible flock he is God's Gift. Meanwhile, whenever he speaks, he looks out at the crowd, and there is a slight recognition of "wow, they buy this". The Mark must always think they are in on the Con until they are taken...and the base is firmly convinced they are in on the Con. They will learn, too late, they were the true Mark.
256
Corporations require laws and prosperous countries to exist and to prosper. Governments may annoy but they are indispensable.
10
@Casey In the UK we have a very similar man in power here. He has already tried to stifle (here called prorogation) Parliament - thats both Houses together. He has now won an election and created a real 'Elective Dictatorship'. He now intends to weaken the power of the Courts and the BBC.
He is backed by big money, and rules by lies. He is called Boris Johnson.
29
@Casual Observer
I do not think many CEOs believe that.
1
So, all the wars and civil struggles to fight tyranny and achieve liberty were really a sham. No mothers’ sons and daughters were sacrificed for any meaning of the terms freedom and dignity. It is apparently justified to ignore these struggles on the battlefields and in the streets to achieve human rights.
What we are suffering from is tipping "the balance in favor of unconstrained diversity and complexity”, you know, racism. While there are degrees of racism and we all suffer from it, it’s always a bad thing because it attacks our dignity and rights as human beings. It becomes an excuse for not thinking very hard, not considering that the different person is essentially the same as you.
Sometimes, in their drive to explain things academics miss the big point because their research methods are focused on the small things they can measure. Let’s remember the big things. Keep in mind that many people sacrificed so much for us to be able to consider the “luxury” of liberalism.
Freedom and human dignity may be luxuries but everyone deserves—by right of birth—to ride in first class.
63
bravo!
3
So, all the wars and civil struggles to fight tyranny and achieve liberty were really a sham. No mothers’ sons and daughters were sacrificed for any meaning of the terms freedom and dignity. It is apparently justified to ignore these struggles on the battlefields and in the streets to achieve human rights.
What we are suffering from is tipping "the balance in favor of unconstrained diversity and complexity”, you know, racism. While there are degrees of racism and we all suffer from it, it’s always a bad thing because it attacks our dignity and rights as human beings. It becomes an excuse for not thinking very hard, not considering that the different person is essentially the same as you.
Sometimes, in their drive to explain things academics miss the big point because their research methods are focused on the small things they can measure. Let’s remember the big things. Keep in mind that many people sacrificed so much for us to be able to consider the “luxury” of liberalism.
Freedom and human dignity may be luxuries but everyone deserves—by right of birth—to ride in first class.
11
I lived in an impoverished village of several interrelated families in a small democratic nation. It was divided politically between conservatives and liberals. Both sides contributed leadership and both sides exhibited concern for the well-being of their neighbors. Dedication to societal and political "values" may seem to be a "soft" factor in group behavior, but it appears to contribute meaning to people's lives. Why do people search for meaning? Why is meaning a factor in survival during hard times? Why does loss of meaning and despair contribute to suicide? These are questions seldom plumbed by "hard" research. Nevertheless, this article is informative and helpful. Yes, education is transformative, but people still cling to the political leaning of their families, even when they become more informed about the views of others and the existence of diversity of views and cultures. The desire to belong to a group encourages conformity to group values, which enhance acceptance of one by the group.
1
Empathy is only one human emotion. There is an ugly side too, anger and hatred, and those are powerful emotions. Those emotions are in all of us, sometimes we regress into those emotions. This is why sometimes liberals regress, it's harder for conservatives to evolve, that takes more work.
Anger and hatred is what explains the Trump movement. It's why when he acts like a bully he becomes more popular not less. It also explains why the movement is so heavily male. What we are seeing is a societal regression. Half of our society has become a circle of middle schoolers cheering on a bully. It's the making of a lynch mob. We will pay a price. Hopefully we snap out of it, but perhaps we wont.
166
@PNBlanco We will not "snap out of it." We might reverse this trend, slowly, through education, but we will have to invest much more in basic education, pay K-12 teachers much better, and get our noses out of our screens for longer periods of time. We need to raise and teach kids better.
20
@burfordianprophet... perfect prescription for return to health...but the patient does not trust the doctor, can't afford the meds and enjoys complaining too much about the pain...
5
Edsall tries to blame progressives and reactionaries equally for the current climate in America, but that requires ignoring reality. It has been well proven that the more frightened people are, the more conservative they become. The fact that people are more liberal when “negative stimuli becoming less prevalent and less deadly,” and “when daily threats to life and limb posed by other human beings have diminished” is the basis for understanding how rightwing propaganda machines have worked throughout history to control minds. For decades Limbaugh, Fox, Drudge and other Republican propaganda outlets have pushed a lying dystopian narrative that preys on the ignorance, credulity, and fear of the uninformed in order to keep the base frightened and compliant with Republican leadership’s wishes. To argue that progressives should slow or stop any human advancement so as not to upset those frightened, credulous reactionaries is to argue that all human progress has been bad and should therefore cease. The only real solution to the ignorance, fear and anger of the uninformed and credulous is better education with an emphasis on critical thinking skills and more, not less, pushback against the devious, controlling rightwing propaganda machine.
7
It is perhaps obvious that when desperate and in fear for their own lives, people might be less generous towards “outsiders” and less tolerant of diversity.
Absent from some of these analyses which tend to focus on psychological issues, is why people are threatened in the first place.
Why is there job or resource- scarcity? The scarcity produces the “ siege” mentality and intolerance which ( mostly) right-wing politicians and parties create, stoke and exploit.
1
Mr. Edsall brings up many important ideas explaining Trump persistence. Here is another thought. There is a craving for masculine energy in the public sphere. While both masculine and feminine energy are essential for making a working culture, men now are confused about manhood. There seems to be a cultural message that manhood, by its existence is somehow "bad." The long held ideal of men as moral humans capable of strength, protection, leadership, clear-eyed reason, moral authority, has been tossed aside and nothing has replaced it. Add to this that research indicates that many men are actually friendless, or nearly so. Enter Rush, Sean, and their ilk. They don't seem afraid of male energy. They talk to these fellows (and women too) everyday so they must be their friends, right? Plus they agree with them on everything! They are "real guys." They like guns and stuff.
So one explanation of Trump persistence is evidence of a craving for male energy in the public sphere, a huge deficit of real friendships among men, airwaves overtaken by toxic simpletons, and heartbreaking, disturbing and ultimately culture destroying understanding of what is means to "be a man."
4
@Ao I can endorse that additional thought. Well put, Ao!
If I could ask Trump supporters one question, I think it would be this: Would you pay the tuition and enroll in Trump University?
2
We do not consider education important, if we did everyone in this country could be afforded an excellent education.
We do not consider immigration important. If we did we would have the most comprehensive immigration policy in the world.
We do not consider a representative government important - if we did we would be leaders in the world in governmental representation and global leadership
We do not consider health important and continue to show the world how a wealthy nation can continue to tap it’s public for overblown costs
We do not care that science is reporting environmental changes that will cost the public lives and vast sums of money
I do believe we, including myself have been lulled into a nice place where we can observe from the outside without overextending and getting involved. For me it’s a matter of sacrificing some financial security and convenience. I just might do that if I thought there was a true leader who stood a chance..... do I hear a rallying cry?
125
@JRF III
One of the lies being thrown at us constantly is that exactly such a leader - Elizabeth Warren - doesn't 'stand a chance.'
This is the kind of propaganda that deflates her support. She not only can win, she can lead us admirably, restore our partnerships on the world stage, and most important, go after the dark money and Citizen's United entities that have ruined our democracy right in front of our noses.
94
@JRF III
"We do not consider education important, if we did everyone in this country could"
learn to think somewhat more clearly about the issues facing us all.
10
@JRF III We DO have "the most comprehensive immigration policy in the world."
Over the last 70 years, the United States has allowed more lawful permanent residents to immigrate to our country than all the rest of the countries in the world... combined... have let immigrate into their countries Over half of them have become citizens.
We also have allowed millions of temporary residents... pushed out of their own countries by war or natural disaster... to stay for years... often long after the war has ended or the results of the natural disaster has been fixed
The rest of your points could be similarly rebutted
2
Right now the planet and all life on it are facing a massive threat. Why is it not obvious that the only response that makes sense is to identify yourself, not as a member of a tribe, but as a human being? Are citizens of nations like the United States, too attached to the image of themselves as members of their national tribe to see the big picture? How dire will the threat have to be before we begin to value our shared common humanity more than our national or political identities?
172
@DanD Wow, thank you for stating this. I think this is the problem. The backlash is from rural areas against this globalisation which all of us have suffered from or benefitted from but we're all in this together and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. Walls will not help.
4
@RamS ONLY when we realize in MUCH larger numbers that we are a SPECIES, not a "people", "nation", or "tribe", will we be able to confront the climate threat. I don't see that in the near enough future.
8
Bravo! and Thank you.
2
Yes. Psychology is informative. But I would add that history is too. Look into the philosophical underpinnings of Fascism.
Particularly Nietzsche's concept of the "superman", and writings by Italian fascists in the teens and twenties.
We are seeing our great democracy descend into first the desire for easy answers to complex problems, then the election of a wannabe strong man who promises easy answers, and then a cult of personality for that man, which
ensures him loyalty despite his inability to solve complex problems. Not unlike all the fascist regimes of interwar europe (and it was more than just Germany and Italy).
6
"So there’s the paradox of our times: it is likely that rather less liberal democracy will ultimately make liberal democracy more secure."
This was extremely depressing. If education is key to reducing tribalism, intolerance, and bigotry, making it more accessible should help sort out differences.
Of course that doesn't happen as a recent NYT article textbooks used in different states showed. In early post-war II America most children shared the same curriculum. Today, textbook "bubbles" cement tribal worldviews.
The authors cited don't mention today's extreme segmentation of news and social media in reforcing groupthink. While "lukewarm" liberals dance around the edges of activism, conservatives seem more energized by the incitement and yes, mendacity, of FOX News.
Throw into this mix an unstable demagogue and our society is on the brink of combustion.
282
@ChristineMcM
And because people don’t get their news from the same sources, they have no inclination to reflect on that news and talk about it with others who may not share their political tendencies and think, “Does that sound right?”
10
@ChristineMcM - Christine, I read that article about textbooks and here is what struck me as a daily reader and complainer about so much put out as Race/Related.
If we are going to compare textbooks in America, the very first comparison should be to determine what each American high school student is taught about the US Census Bureau system for classifying us. I do not write the name of the author of the essential book about that subject because I now get automatic microsecond blocks when I click on SUBMIT (DO YOU?) if my comment named leading researchers in that field and even worse the names of their books.
This happened when I tried to comment on the review here of Thomas Chatterton Williams new memoir, Self Portrait In Black and White - Unlearning race. I have kept in touch with him and actually had the book before me and wanted to suggest a few changes for a few comments. Every single one of my submissions was blocked with the now familiar red ink message - We cannot save your comment...
If you know anything about how the USCB system is handled in teaching would like to know.
larry
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
3
@ChristineMcM
Education is a cash cow for every person who is in publishing starting with the religious right universities. They live in a totally different country right down to Pearson who listens to ignorant southern board members and recreates, changes facts for their happiness of their board members. After all slavery was a good thing because the white man told us so.
.
Parents need to be either active in there kids lives or just dont have children. We are allowing little ones to become haters and lets remember Nazi Germany where the children were little spies. ..
7
With the horrors of WWII fading out of living memory, the West is reverting to the factional politics of the 1920s. Esp. conservative voters want their leaders to take a no-holds-barred, brass knuckle approach to defeating the opposition, who are no longer seen as fellow citizens but as enemies and a threat civilization.
In the US the process has been long in the making. It began with the Gingrich revolution, continued through the Bush years and was fully fledged when the - unjustly sainted - John McCain made Sarah Palin his running mate.
This won't end well, and things will get much worse before they get better.
422
@EBurgett: I fully agree. The placid 50s and 60s, for all the latter decade's generational explosiveness and social upheaval seem tame in when compared to today's ugly politics. Unfortunately, I just don't see the left's opposition to Trumpism developing the energy it needs to change our current trajectory. What I fear most is the use of the DOJ to exact retribution on those who initiated impeachment, and increasing judicial harrassment of liberal political views.
107
@EBurgett
That is why we need to educate our children and take responsibility by reading the news to them every day. When I went to public school, we had certified teachers who knew the material we had current events every day. We spent an hour on current events ,if you didn't have the money to buy a newspaper, the teacher gave you money to buy a paper when it was your turn to present. Local news, international news and US news were covered
.
We visited the world with those sessions and the teacher would wear a vest that was part of a countries history.
The teacher felt it was important for the students to understand the world not just their block. I think of those days and how lucky I was to be part of the world daily in school.
We complain about civics but we only need to look at ourselves, we created this world of indifference but we need to force the change we want.
Last night with the GOP complaining about the truth change needs to come now. Teach our children about their country and the world. It is never to late to be involved and we need to show our children that we care about justice and the truth,
25
@EBurgett
It might get worse for sure, but it does not mean it will get better after that.
The notion that things must get worse before they get better does not work well short term.
This week is the 75th anniversary of liberating Aushvitz. Yes, things got worse for a while and then better, but for those who physically survived the 12 year run of evil, death and war. This is just an example, one of the countless, where things kept getting much worse for a long time.
21
I was poor once, and the actions of conservative presidents directly and negatively affected me economically.
I would say there are many factors regarding the poor, and charting them ignores individual circumstances.
I'm no longer poor, and I can report that I did socially and financially better under the Clinton and Obama administrations.
I also do not become more conservative under the influence of alcohol.
In the end, it comes down to this for me. If some tragedy befalls me, and I can no longer support myself, who would I want to be president?
Trump has introduced unprecedented levels of cruelty and danger to our government. I could never count on him to effect change that would help me or the country.
At least with Democrats, there is the possibility of compassion and consideration.
Integrity does matter.
I don't think you can chart that.
32
@Just Live Well
Good post.
But here's the sad fact: A goodly portion of our fellow citizens equate integrity with cruelty. They think Trump
honest and a breath of fresh air because he's a loudmouth who voices their darkest prejudices.
1
For all the ways I disagree with republicans, the one trait I admire is their ability to put their own preferences aside, unite behind a candidate, and stick to it. We think they are stubborn, but how stubborn are we? How many Warren supporters plan to vote for Bernie or Biden if they win the nomination? How many black voters would support Buttigieg if he won it? How many moderate men would support Warren? How many young democrats would support Biden if he wins it? If we can't come together, we'll lose, it's that simple. That means if your favorite doesn't make it, you need to put your feelings aside and di the right thing. I'm really doubtful we can do it.
587
@Tom J
In the primary, I'll vote for my preferred candidate but in the general I will vote for ANY person with a D after his/her name (just like last time-- Sanders in the primary, Clinton in the general).
Of course, this assumes that there will be free and fair elections in 2020, which I actually doubt.
166
@Tom J
Actually, general election turnout in Presidential elections by eligible voters is remarkably consistent by every statistical category. Democrats, Republicans, Unaffiliated, Men, Women, Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, old, young. Past turnout percentage by any category is extremely predictive of future turnout percentage. Regardless of candidate.
It's true that Republicans turn out at higher rates than Democrats, but that has nothing to do with Biden/Warrren/Sanders/Buttigieg - it has to do with Democratic voters and Republicans voters.
In 2016, all categories except one turned out at virtually the same rate as in 2012 and 2008. The one outlier was black eligible voters. Their turnout dropped from 65% (2008) and 66% (2012) to 59% (2016). The drop in Wisconsin was particularly dramatic - like a 20% drop in black turnout rate.
Regardless of the reason (i.e., Republican disenfranchisement, Russian propaganda, uninspiring candidate, failure to do basic turnout work, unsecure voting machines), this drop in black eligible voter participation caused the Clinton loss.
Whoever is the candidate this time around needs to get black eligible voter turnout back to 65%. I will base my primary vote on my best guess to who can do so.
34
@Sam I Am well, black voters are particularly unhappy with Trump and I hope they make getting rid of him priority number one and then start throwing their weight around after the election. If black voters start being the highest voting constituency (like seniors are) their concerns will get more airtime. Unfortunately they are fighting, as always, an uphill battle against disenfranchisement. Stacy Abrams is their Joan of Arc and needs all the help she can get.
60
The message to Democrats, do what Trump cannot, appeal to the good in human nature, the willingness to lend a helping hand, to uplift the hearts of people, to work together to achieve great things. Trust in the good will of Americans, that they will mostly do the right thing without being told. Stop talking like they must save Americans from themselves.
3
These differences in political orientations are the intervening variables. How do the people in each camp come to these views?
1. Political socialization from childhood on. The tendency is to follow the same general political direction as parents/family, which may be reinforced or change in adulthood due to the socialization pressures of reference groups (education, occupation, friends).
2. Status Consistency-Inconsistency:
a. Status Consistent: People who share the demographic characteristics of the dominant group in society (i.e., white, Anglo-Saxon, male, Protestant) are high on ascribed status: they are born with and grow up these traits, & tend to be more conservative & favor the status quo that prefers their traits. Self-protective, they try to keep others down.
b. Status Inconsistent: People lower on ascribed status but high on achieved (i.e., people of color; women; Jewish, Muslim, atheist; gay; immigrant). We are more likely to feel we are discriminated against and to identify with others in the same boat & likely to be liberal--open to helping others achieve and succeed--rather than "keeping them in their place."
Note: Avid right-wingers may be high or low income but cling desperately to their high ascribed status of white, Anglo-Saxon, male.
Trump tapped into: Lower income high ascribed status folks are especially angry, since they see themselves downward mobile because of people higher on achieved status (esp. education) but have lower ascribed status.
2
Stereotype much?
I was brought up with standards of right and wrong and fairness. I was told we are all equal. I guess many Americans were brought up differently. I’m not changing.
5
Nice halo. Everyone can see its not your fault.
If Republicans want to debate immigration without being called racist, perhaps they would debate imprisoning asylum seekers and separating children from their parents, or deporting long-term residents of the US including members of our military without saying Democrats want open borders.
We’re going backwards on this. In the 1980s George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan debated over how sensitive and humane their immigration policies would be.
1
Several of the most popular letters here decry the internal debates within the Democratic primary. I don't. When I try to find out why Republicans support Trump, McConnell et al, I never get a reasoned answer. It's always some variant of "I'm going to vote for Trump because I'm going to vote for him." Or, "the Democrats will destroy the country." Democrats use words and thought, as well as feelings to discuss their political thoughts. Republicans (now better called Trump fans) don't express political thoughts, as such, because their political views are oriented by Fox or Limbaugh, their fears or...Lord knows what, but not reflection and consideration.
3
I see why Edsall led with Dr. Stenner's points; it's not change per se but rather the pace of change that unnerves a society. How is it possible to prevent a sense of cultural alienation among natives when they increasingly have the experience of being abroad while staying at home? Five percent? Ten? 25? At what level of foreign-born residents do we risk the aspirations of liberal democracy? Trump persists partly because Democrats have refused to entertain this question, preferring instead to rest on platitudes about "America, land of immigrants." It's a kind of magical thinking; the numbers matter.
1
Moving to Arkansas from the SF Bay Area. where my wife and I lived for many decades, I remember being positively shocked to see local people, white, black and native, cleaning hotel rooms, bussing tables, blowing leaves etc. in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and finally here in Arkansas. When one lives in the major metros areas of Seattle, Boston, SF, DC or NY, all this work, in addition to landscaping, hospital room cleaning, construction site labor, is performed by non-native born peoples. Mr. Edsall may choose to focus on "tolerance to diversity", but honestly, it's all about the money. It's always about the money. People in poorer communities depend upon the same sorts of low wage, semi-skilled or unskilled jobs newly arrived most immigrants gravitate towards. Unlike Mr. Edsall (I suspect), I know a great many Trump voters, I've never heard anyone complain about Pakistani doctors or Vietnamese State Troopers (one stopped me the other day). In fact, the Walmart where I shop in Missouri's poorest county (McDonald) is regularly patronized by several Somali families, who happily shop right along side rednecks, hillbillies and Salvadoreans.
5
@Glenn Baldwin My elderly aunt lives in farm country next to a charming small town where the immigrant Mexican population in the past 20 years has grown to about 15-18%. The remaining population is predominantly white. She always chooses a Mexican owned diner for lunch when I visit and she enjoys chatting with the owners and employees. She's the same when we visit other local businesses - friendly, kind, and open. Yet, she will complain endlessly that Mexicans are "taking over" everything and she hopes that her son and his family will move out of town because there are just too many Mexicans.
3
@Glenn Baldwin :Edsall cherry picks results from polls many of which ask very leading or selective questions.
Perhaps he can take a poll of NYC residents and ask: Why do you tolerate a racially segregated public school system?
Now those results would be interesting.
1
@Jp You just supported his main point.
This is a pretty bleak outlook on the current state of affairs.
To wit: Conservatism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As the conditions that encourage tribalism and selfishness proliferate, behaviors associated with tribalism and selfishness reinforce those conditions.
We ceded too much, too fast, to Reaganomics.
1
I'll certainly agree that the last paragraph summarizes the dilemma for Democrats. There is little common ground between the factions other than disgust for trump. There are some generally shared beliefs e.g. climate change, but they are for the most part lower on the priority list of voter concerns and not the primary motivation for their vote. trump's base on the other hand is unified and the reason(s) are well illustrated by the comments from the academics sampled. It will be a high hill for the Democrats to climb to remove trump from office after a single term.
3
Mistrust and resentment, Trump is a person who relates to unhappiness and can only really resonate with the anger and sense of being mistreated in people and their desire to have power. Trump is a demagogue but not a leader, his instincts are to gain advantage not to inspire.
7
@Casual Observer
But he has 'inspired" many to fear and hatred.
the surprising that in this otherwise thorough and much-needed article Mister Edsel neglect to mention one of the most important factors, wealth. Even individuals who are socially liberal and who would like to see a more liberal society will very often vote Republican because they want to retain as much of their wealth in the form of lower taxes as possible. On the other hand there is a reverse scenario to the threat matrix discussed here, which is that many of the Republicans I know now feel that their future and that of their children is in jeopardy because of Trump's policies and our hyper materialist and consumption culture. Because of this, they are thinking of voting Democratic for the first time. Perhaps this is the built-in self-correcting mechanism of our republic, but I fear it's kicked in too late to save us and the planet from unprecedented disaster.
6
The American electorate is going to rise up against Donald Trump - on election day. It will also rise up against Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and the Republican Senate majority.
It won't just be a "blue wave" - it will be a tsunami.
7
@Vesuviano You have a tremendous amount of faith in the American peoples' rejection of Trump's nativism, sectarianism and cruelty. I hope to God your optimism is justified, and that Thomas Edsell has it all wrong. But the very point of his article is that American voters may be a lot less compassionate than commonly thought, and he mentions a lot of studies that support that theory.
@Vesuviano
Unfortunately wishful thinking unless the Stock Market and or the Economy take a nosedive between now and November. Where are Senators Collins et al? The sham "Trial" and ultimate acquittal will set precedents that will reverberate for a very long time. Who c (would) have thought that a Reality Show huckster, Mr Bankruptcy, could bring this Country to its knees.
@Bill Clarke
Gloom never helped a political campaign.
Vote.
“Every study I’ve ever seen across the social sciences shows that education promotes less in-group favoritism and greater tolerance toward those unlike ourselves,”
I'm curious to know whether Prof. Mutz's definition of "in-group" extends to social/political views - because, in my experience, highly educated liberals are some of the least tolerant of alternative views on social/political issues of anyone I know.
I used to think that one of the failings of conservatives was that they wanted to make every issue a "moral" issue - abortion, LGBT rights, poverty, homelessness, whatever. So if you were on the other side on an issue, you were somehow "immoral." The problem with that is that it's difficult to find any agreement when you are basically insulting the other side as "morally deficient."
Unfortunately, in recent years, liberals have seemed to take the same approach, making the political environment doubly toxic. Certainly, we have a President who is morally deficient, but when Hillary Clinton talked of the "basket of deplorables," it left the impression, intended or not, that anyone who shared any of Trump's views fell into that same category. That's a pretty offensive accusation.
If we're going to get rid of the current administration and get ourselves back on track, we need a Democratic candidate who can make his/her case without demonizing voters who are not 100% in agreement. The "most progressive" of the Democratic candidates won't get the job done.
8
@Gary I'm a liberal Democrat who believes you are 100% correct. Why do so many other Democrats believe the way to electoral success is insulting the swing voters whose votes you clearly need? (Remember the large numbers of Obama>Trump voters; they obviously can't all be hopeless racists.) Judge them however you like, but keep it to yourself. No one that I know of has ever had a change of heart because they've been shamed into feeling terrible about themselves. It would serve our party well to take everyone's concerns seriously, without condescension or worse, since everyone gets a vote.
@Gary Huh. You of course leave out the entire context of Clinton's speech. "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” Then, of course, she went on to discuss other. At this point, though, anyone who still supports Trump is clearly a deplorable. Period.
@RMS
Ah - my apologies! So, it was only about 31 million voters who Ms Clinton characterized as morally deficient. I wonder how many of them were in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin?
1
"exactly what common ground holds the Democratic coalition together" I suggest decency, building a sustainable future for the next generation, and respect. All things lacking within the GOP coalition that has a grifting mentality that seeks to extract whatever each of them perceives as value from whomever.
9
It has long been observed that to understand America one should turn to baseball for guidance.
Currently such advice is helpful.Specifically google the Houston Astros and catch up on their difficulties and how it is affecting baseball culture.Apply the baseball situation to American political and social culture and the similarities are mirror-like.
What can we learn about "next season"from all this.Spring training is just around the corner.
3
Social conservatives are motivated primarily by fear and anger, very primal emotions. Appeal to someones fears and you have them for life. The base will not desert Donald Trump. The only variable with any meaning in 2020 will be turnout.
10
Yes you nailed it. Conservatives are voting out of fear and anger and no one stimulates that more that Trump.
@Dave:"Social conservatives are motivated primarily by fear "
Yeah, I have to admit you have something there.
I grew up on the near east side of Detroit (Chene Street area) and lived there from the 1950s through the 1980s.
My family and friends had become targets of assaults and robbery with an increasing frequency. Some of which was racially motivated.
We had tried to make the neighborhood safer but were met with cries of "You're just afraid of those who don't look like you!" or "You don't want to share power with those who don't look like you!".
One evening our phone lines were cut. Fortunately we had a firearm in the house and I chased away the would be perps. That was it.
The neighborhood had been transformed from a modest lower middle class area to what was essentially a war zone. This was due to the actions of it residents.
We moved out of the city.
BTW, my privileged, ill-gotten inter-generational real estate wealth consists of an empty lot with an assessed value of $101. Since we moved out my family has moved from the bottom 20% to the top 10% of the economic scale.
There were very few white liberals living in the neighborhood when we moved.
But as we moved one could almost hear the cries of: "Look white flight!" coming from liberals in safe environs and the OP-ED pages of the NYT.
So yeah, fear played a part but it wasn't a fear of the unknown. The fear was grounded in reality and my family's experiences.
People have been commenting and taking action through voting, through phone calls, marches, volunteering, donating to political campaigns. Yes, we should be doing more, but many people are not accepting of Trump and his cohorts.
2
As I have written before, cultural moderation, as well as disciplined messaging about healthcare, jobs and education, will win the 2020 presidential election. Economic populism can also win. The ideal would be a combination of both. People feel as though the culture is changing too quickly for them.
6
@David
OK. Can you tell us why so many try to massage that feeling by attacking the least among us?
Its the powerful, not the powerless, that effect us the most.
@Jerseytime As Edsall points out, conservative views require the least amount of cognitive effort. So when the brain is overloaded, it will lash out at the perceived sources of frustration. At times of great change with little cognitive reserve, I'd imagine that's when people attack the most vulnerable.
Another Edsall fail.
Two-thirds of Americans are decent patriots. One-third are lacking critical thinking skills and oblivious to the real issues. It's that simple.
Any outliers that appear to defy this analysis have a direct interest -- power or money or lower taxes -- in supporting Trump.
7
@Phil Carson Well that sounds scientific.
I look forward to Mr. Edsall's contributions, and this one is up to standard. I have read the work of several of the experts he cites and do not disagree about the tensions affecting the behavior of voters. Still, there is one historical factor that people looking at our current situation tend to neglect. The Republican Party has been recruiting a base of low capacity voters since the 1950s by appealing to a series of fears and bigotries: anti communism, racism (the biggie), abortion, anti LGBT, primitive "Christianity", etc. It worked, but when you recruit your voters with such appeals, those people become your party. Trump was the first successful Republican to give voice to the bigotry of the base. I don't remember immigration being a major recruiting issues until Trump, but such attitudes come tagging along with the others. Republicans cannot restrain Trump because he has the solid support of the base, and their votes are required to elect Republicans.
8
@rawebb1
I agree with alot of what you say. Except, Trump is NOT the first to give voice to bigotry. Nixon had the southern strategy. Reagan told jokes about "welfare queens".
Bush Sr. had Willie Horton.
Trump is merely worse.
I've been asking folks for decades why they aren't more upset with politicians when they act in ways that are either illegal or unethical. I've asked them why they don't vote in local, state and national elections. I've asked them what it would take for them to rise up and march or protest against a corrupt system or elected official.
The answer is almost ALWAYS the same. They tell me..."Why bother?...nothing in my life will markedly change". Politicians talk and talk and and nothing changes. If anything it gets worse. Income inequality gets worse. These people never really use the term income inequality, but the terms they do use point to the problem.
Since I'm a liberal and most of my friends are moderate to liberal I understand what kind of explanations I will get about politics and politicians. Having said that, I interact with all kinds of people from many walks of life and when I ask them why they voted for Trump they said they finally felt they saw someone who would make a REAL change. In many ways, it looks like they got someone very different than past presidents when it comes to ethics, morals, compassion, ego, vanity and truthful behavior. They didn't get the change when it came to their lot in life really changing for the better.
So it looks as if we are left with tribalism, dislike and even hatred as the motivating factors in why we vote and who we vote for and support. It also looks as if Republicans cornered the market on those factors, ergo persistence.
4
The Republican strategy of defunding education, arts, and humanities, and making health services—including mental health and fresh food—less available, is working for them. So is dedicating more than half the nation’s budget to military spending, allegedly to keep Americans “safe,” further adding to the general anxiety, insularity and fear that keeps conservatives in power.
8
Karen Stenner decries the “unwillingness of liberals to accept an open debate in which immigration opponents can ‘express their fears and concerns, without being called racists.’” I’m happy to discuss immigration with conservatives or liberals, and I do not take it for granted that those who advocate stricter rules or enforcement are racists. But here’s something that I do want both sides to adopt: the same standards for assessing an argument, involving verifiable and widely accepted data and robust standards for debate. It won’t matter if we put aside tribal epithets but each side subscribes to a different and incompatible set of data and standard of debate. That is where we seem to be, and increasingly so.
A case in point: the causes of poverty, as discussed in this essay. Why do conservatives insist that it is irresponsible personal conduct, or unwise use of funds? What data does this depend on? Extrapolation from one or two personal acquaintances? Yesterday’s Rush Limbaugh or Fox and Friends? A cherry-picked data set? We hear a lot about immigrants depressing wages. Would conservatives agree to accept the 2017 National Academies study [https://www.nap.edu/read/23550/chapter/2] that found little effect on overall employment levels of native-born workers, and that overall the inflow of foreign-born workers was a relatively minor factor in the $18 trillion US economy? Will I be called an elitist (the conservative equivalent to ‘racist’) for holding that as valid?
18
@Ockham9
The conservative position, which is centuries old (read
"A Christmas Carol"), is mere justification for their opposing spending any money (ie: taxes) to alleviate the poor's plight. In the US, it does not help that the most visible poor (in the cities) are mostly not white.
5
I have often wondered about what explains people's political views and biases, and think that Edsall's summary of psychological research is extraordinarily helpful. It helps us better understand not only urban vs. rural and educated vs. non-educated attitudes toward immigration but also views on a range of issues relating generally to ethnic or group solidarity vs. diversity, inclusion and equality. (Examples that come to mind include white resistance to integration and civil rights measures, Islamophobia after 9/11, the internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor, and the diverse range of American Jewish views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).
8
@JNC :" (Examples that come to mind include white resistance to integration and"
Not sure if the censors will let this one through but here it goes...
I grew up on the near east side of Detroit. The Detroit Public Schools (DPS) had a destructive court-ordered busing plan forced on it in 1972. Judge Roth wrote in part: “Transportation of kindergarten children for upwards of 45 minutes, one way, does not appear unreasonable, harmful, or unsafe in any way. ...kindergarten children should be included in the final plan of desegregation.” This was a weaponized judiciary aimed at working class folks by liberal Feds who for the most part had no skin in the game. Fortunately the cross-district scheme was reversed by the SCOTUS. Unfortunately Detroit Public Schools were still forced to implement busing with a white student population of 26%. Each school was forced to have a student body that reflected this demographic. Working class folks with little of financial cushion saw their homes become essentially worthless due to the destruction of the DPS. These were working class folks who were hurt by Judge Roth while he trampled out the vintage where the grapes of wrath were stored. The only Democrat in the 1972 Michigan Primary to speak out against this plan was George Wallace who won the primary that year.
More interestingly, soon there were no more white liberals living in my neighborhood.
In terms of racially segregated public schools, well keep talking perhaps no one will notice.
.........pretty clear from this one story that most citizens (I use the word citizen for every person, regardless of birthplace) in the United States struggle with immigration, having actual skin in the political game, and live in the stupor of economic success. There is a large 'quasi' coalition of voters who despise Trump - but view the election, and Trump, on a gradient scale of what makes them comfortable, or motivated. Worse, much of Trump's most violent instincts play into base instincts already in play by many 'liberal' citizens. The umbrella of what defines a liberal, supporting such things as unions, teachers, choice, the environment, immigration, and gun control, aren't what make any individual voter motivated or comfortable. How do we keep a big liberal tent filled with motivated voters, supporting the numerous issues necessary for a healthy future, and not disregard or ignore why the appeal of hatefulness to those on the margins of involvement in this next election might be devastating?
2
Inherent human tendencies to conservatism or liberalism may be beneficial results of evolution. Perhaps the balance between the two has been a good thing. But that was then and this is now.
How do these tendencies play out today? We are entering an era when the climate crisis is going to force us to adapt rapidly for survival. Resistance to change will be fatal.
But our American society is structured to place control over wealth in the hands of a few, and the few are in no mood to give it up. They make alliances and fund politicians who will help them keep it. They use our American mythology of the self-made man and "job creator" to justify the concentration of wealth. They encourage religious conservatives, knowing that whatever restrictions those people might place on ordinary Americans won't apply to the very rich.
So at a time when we desperately need to reduce carbon and methane emissions, the decision-makers and those in control of corporations like Exxon Mobil continue to invest in oil and gas exploration and building new cracking facilities, gas and oil export terminals pipelines, etc. They are confident that they can use conservatism to block efforts to make major changes to the economy.
Whatever its benefits in times past, conservatism no longer promotes survival. It promotes a suicidal form of tribalism.
13
Trump persists because our world is in a political social wake up, one in which the light is only getting brighter. The story these past four years has never really been Trump, but rather the discussion should have focused on what he had replaced. He will be reelected because the opposition presents nothing new for these politically transformative times, having spent their days only in attempting to remove him from contention. Our on the job training president presents a better alternative to going back to where we came from politically.
2
Except for the fact that the dysfunctional government is a rightwing construct easily disproved as you drive in a safe car down a paved road to deliver your child to a public school, then trot off to shop for safe food delivered to your neighborhood through sea and air ports and over state and national highways. You go about your day benefitting from a multitude of successful government programs that you never have to think about, yet still rail against the mythical dysfunctional government. And do ignore the fact that your on-the-job-training President has still not learned anything about the job after three years in office. He was as incompetent on January 20, 202 as he was on January 20, 2017.Out in the real world his lack of a work ethic, anger management issues and refusal to learn anything pertinent to his job would have seen him sacked after one week.
No wonder there has been a steady defunding of public education, a diminished focus on critical thinking skills and a lack of financial commitment to teachers and education, especially in communities of color. Imagine if all communities received an equal share of education funding per student (cost of living taken into account). It seems to me that those with strong critical thinking skills actually think more critically about important issues and are less likely to support someone like Trump. The exceptions might be those with critical thinking abilities that use that thinking in service to short term self-interest only instead of self AND community.
3
This is a very long-winded way of stating the cliche:
A conservative is a liberal who was mugged last night.
When safety or basic economic needs are in question, people adopt "conservative" values. When they feel safe and secure, they adopt "liberal" values.
8
@Jonathan Katz
That cliche is nothing more than an early conservative stab at a talking point. It is wildly untrue.
Before 1980 or so, when American workers felt their economic needs at issue, they fought those with the money and in control of their jobs, the economy and to a large extent, the government.
Now, after 40 years of conservative double think, they blame "dark" people, city dwellers, the poor, the ill, gays and the nonreligious. And not so much for their economic plight, but rather for "cultural" issues. And those with the money and power, through the GOP, get to do what they want. Which tends to hurt them economically.
@Jonathan Katz
Yes, Jonathan, and a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested.
Of course the professors will find that higher levels of education will lead to a better society. It’s in their class interest to do so. Their becoming aware of this will mark a change from class interest to class consciousness.
1
@JamesEric
Are you making an argument that lower levels of education are better?
There is nothing in this article that supports the conclusion: that Democrats are allegedly ambivalent about defeating Trump in 2020. Which is just as well, since there’s no point in putting together coherent arguments to support obviously false conclusions.
5
So, we tend to go with “low effort thinking” , and more conservative, under the influence of alcohol.
I can see the GOP run with this one, and instead of wasting time gerrymandering their districts, simply ensure that there is a well stocked bar near every polling booth.
5
Social issues aside, the great threat to us and our planet is Global warming. The causes are not right or left, rich or poor. We are all in it together. If we continue to undo our present progress, as we would if Trump is elected, then we and our present planet is doomed. We may be able to recover from 4 more years of Trump but I would rather see us make progress and work towards a more sustainable use of our resources than abandon those to create more greenhouse gases and a worse climate warming situation from which we may never recover. For those worried about jobs and prosperity, yes there will be more of those based on newer technology and use of cleaner resources. On the other hand if we do nothing or make matters worse, what would a better job or lots of money do to help reduce global warming or prevent mass starvation?
6
@TheniD
No, it's not. Global warming is a phenomenon to be observed, not a problem to be solved.
The science is clear:The climate is warming, and the cause is very likely anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases. The science says nothing about whether this is good or bad for humanity, and it has favorable as well as unfavorable effects.
2
Maybe do a little research next time. Rising sea levels and increasing drought, to name a few of the results of global warming, will lead to displacement, starvation and the mass movement of potentially billions of people which will lead to increasing strife and war. These are inarguably bad for humanity.
@Jonathon Katz - In a morally neutral universe climate change is neither objectively “good” or “bad,” but in our smaller universe of human concerns, it is most definitely bad.
Firstly, on the strength of the social science cited in this article, it is bad for human society’s ability to change and adapt to the crisis itself.
Secondly, it is thus bad for humanity’s survival, tho perhaps that narrow, “moral” issue is of no concern to an objectively neutral observer? Fair enuf.
Personally, I find this 2nd reason kind of a bummer, so I’ll quit now & go register Trump voters, to hasten our denouement. The ride down may be a trifle bumpy, but we privileged folk in state rooms will surely have champagne until the very end, eh? Hopefully also a choice of music, & deck chairs to burn if a polar vortex sweeps thru. Tally Ho!
Education levels...that's the core of the imbalance. College opens a person to a wider world, tolerance increases and empathy and understanding grow. Insularity might have been an option in a world of tribes, but the global human species is a much bigger community now spanning essentially 'one' world and we need to work together to lessen not increase tribalism, fear and prejudice.
9
Dr. Mutz’s observation is worth repeating:
“The one sense in which there is evidence that we do ‘overcome’ our tendencies toward tribalism is through education.”
Interestingly enough the graphic provided that indicated conservative, liberal, and moderates viewpoints on reasons for Americans being poor did not include a choice related to equity in educational opportunities, a major omission indeed.
This is a significant factor in one’s ability to overcome “tribalism,” and as such deserves greater attention. The Democratic Party is on the right track in advocating for student loan forgiveness, increasing Pell Grants, and free tuition to 2- and/or 4-year institutions of higher education, and providing additional funding to K-12 school districts whose property taxes based on SES does not provide adequate financing for a quality education.
So long as there exists major disparities in educational funding and opportunities, we will be doomed as a nation to the continuation of tribalism’s appeal, and which portends a dangerous outcome for our democratic principle of “E pluribus unum.”
3
I would support a politician in Los Angeles, where I live, who had no ideological or political allegiances, who spoke the truth, and tackled difficult issues.
For example, we have a huge homeless crisis with encampments everywhere, in parks, under bridges, on sidewalks. 100K people unhoused, living outdoors.
Yet we have an entrenched political establishment who cannot remove "bums/derelicts/homeless/temporarily unsheltered victims/people we must treat with compassion" from the street. We have a policy of soft, then hard, and we fail to do what we should to end this blight.
The solutions: build more housing, free market housing, government housing. Connect taller, denser buildings to a vast public transportation system subsidized by the state and federal government. Fund mental health fully. Insure everyone with medical care. With a flood of new construction, say 500,000 units, rents will come down as landlords compete for new tenants.
And if we do all of the above, we will be hit with an onslaught of illegal immigration from Central and South America which will pour in here and move into housing, and take advantage of free medical care and other benefits. In order to provide decent housing, health care and schools you must limit the amount of people receiving those services.
So you tell me which side of the issues these solutions and problems belong to: conservatives or liberals? Republicans or Democrats.
No wonder we never make any progress in the country.
10
@Harding Dawson Also if LA (and other big cities / towns dealing with homelessness) would do that, they would run at high-speed into that brick wall known as NIMBY. Which is also a reason we don't make progress in this country -- it's one thing to spout off about liberal causes, it's another to actually inconvenience oneself to give a hand to another less well off.
1
Very thought-provoking piece. With globalization and automation making their presences all the more known, and add to that climate change, there's more uncertainty in today's American life. It's understandable to retrench. However, meeting the world's challenges would seem to require coming together, not falling apart and lessening our civilization.
7
Trump persists because of Dems’ transgressions:
1. The ACA has always cost more than some 30 million can afford, most of whom are working class Republicans.
2. Dems argue that Republicans’ failure to expand Medicaid is the main cause of under-coverage. But the failure to expand harmed 2 million, compared to the 30 million who are unable to buy in.
3. Medicare drug coverage was supported by many Democrats despite a coverage gap that causes substantial harm mostly to the GOP working class.
4. While the 1% get unconscionable tax breaks, their numbers are relatively few. Dollar-wise, the greatest harm results from the under-taxation of the next 9%, including many upscale Dems. In Europe, the upscale are taxed about 45%. Here, they are taxed about 33%.
5. Upscale Democrats benefit substantially from countless tax breaks, most notably the home mortgage deduction,
6. State flat taxes — sales and property taxes — mostly burden the GOP working class.
And sin taxes are drastically regressive.
7. Upscale Democrats preach racial justice from their 5-BR homes inaccessible to racial minorities.
8. The upscale live in wealthy school districts that give their kids the inside path to the Ivy Leagues. And others buy their way in.
9. In a naked power grab, upscale Dems court the poor in order to secure an electoral majority over the GOP.
In short, Dems are way partisan and way
self-serving.
4
@michjas Dose of reality always helps. But a few points. Republican opposition to ACA for purely political reasons weakened medical insurance markets and did cause insurers to raise premiums and deductibles. If they cannot profit they go out of business.
A typical Republican tactic as an example: President Trump must certify the payment of subsidies for low income insurance buyers before the money can be released to insurance providers. He delayed approval of the subsidies until AFTER the insurers set their rates. The rates were higher than they had to be.
7
So in your world there are no working class or middle class Democrat’s struggling with the same problems?
And what of all those “I worked for what I have” upscale Republicans who believe if your poor it’s your own fault. Not so much compassion there.
Attend any kind of course on relationships, and you will hear the importance of listening, not labelling people, respecting their views and so on.
Read any political journalist, and they do the exact opposite. They label themselves as Liberal or Conservative, and proceed to label others. Then they vilify the supporters of the other side if their side loses.
Here's my take on why Trump once one, and will win again: he is not a politician. Being a businessman, he has listened to what his 'customers' want. He has understood the grievances of a significant segment of Americans. On the other hand, Hilary Clinton spoke for all Democrat politicians and their supporting journalists, when she labelled Trump supporters 'deplorables'.
Removing Trump is not a solution for the voters, if 49% of voters (or whatever the latest number is) believe that what he stands for is better than what the Democrats stand for.
The Democrats are ready for 'anyone but Trump', just as Labour was ready for 'Anyone but Boris Johnson'. I don't think the Americans in general hate Trump as much as the Democrats do.
When the people see the Democratic political machinery parade a long list of candidates for the primaries, it looks clear that those in charge don't think any of them is attractive enough, but just hope that the voters will pick one. Any one.
If I were a Democrat supporting voter, I would take it as an insult to my intelligence and do what the UK voters did to Labour. Throw them out.
5
@Venugopal - I think you have some good points including the mistake of Hillary Clinton using a derogatory comment to label a large swath of Trump supporters. She also lacked the campaign folksy appeal of her husband, Bill Clinton. Not to mention the lack of focus on campaigning in Rust Belt states which she overlooked to her detriment. I believe she focused too much on identity politics while pushing a hawkish foreign policy & no new ideas on the economy except for the traditional Democratic emphasis on health care & infrastructure. Although she still won the popular vote by 3 million plus. The British election is not the same as both Boris Johnson & Jeremy Corbin were unpopular with Johnson was at minus 12 in the approval rating polling while Corbyn was at negative 40. Corbyn also had the disturbing stain of anti-Semitism on his campaign. Both in the UK as well as the USA, the right wing has exploited white people's fears about immigration which drove the Brexit campaign. Corbyn had to appeal to both Brexit supporters (traditional white working class Brits) as well as educated liberals against Brexit. This left his campaign muddled & incoherent. None of the leading Democrats have this problem, as they all have Trump's record to run against. The only Democrat who is attempting to straddle the fence would be Joe Biden, even though he appeals to conservative blacks. The Progressives are clear that they are against open borders although have strong economic policies & plans.
3
Excellent piece. But we also need to add deliberate disinformation, Rupert Murdoch, all the outside influences that sway the less cognitive among us. The deck is stacked in favor of tribalism with these influences. As our country sinks, other countries who used to aspire to the (mythical, of course) ability to strive for a moral, integrity driven system are losing their hope that it can be sustained, and are largely reverting to their amygdala driven systems. They see the US being completely driven by Its less than stellar id, and surrender.
11
Much food for thought in this article. It certainly makes sense that conservatives engage in a good deal of "low effort thinking", and aren't good at adjusting to change. I would add another observation about conservatives today: Frustrated about the rapid changes in society, humanity, technology, etc, they want simplicity in government ... what they want is "strongman" leadership, or, in other words, dictatorship. They appear to have given up on democracy; it's too messy and confusing for them, they know their relative numbers are decreasing, and they are grabbing power in any and every way they can. That's why Thrump is their man.
13
@dave
Without knowing anything about Nietzsche, or much about Mussolini's governing philosophy, many Americans have indeed embraced the same positions that so many European people embraced from 1920 to 1945.
They seek the great hero who will "make the trains run on time".
1
Trump persist because democratic party has choose to endorse
identity issues over real problems that are facing American middle class. Trump very cleverly played their own game against them and to my humble understanding beat them fair and square with economy, jobs, no wars and as long as democratic party focus on electing candidates without real substance and message Trump will keep winning. 2020 will be land slide in Trump favor because again democratic party has failed to produce real candidate fighting for economy, jobs, health care , education reform and so on......
4
I thought this article was well written and it really made me reflect on myself and my views. I am an educated white person and a Democrat. While I like to think I am an ally, I agree that I have the privilege of treating politics as a hobby because I won't be negatively affected directly. This is why I think that Donald Trump getting reelected or someone like him getting elected is a strong possibility in the future.
I also thought it was interesting that Liberals change their opinion to become Conservative more easily than Conservatives change their opinion to become liberal. Also, the fact that under "low-effort thinking" conditions, answers to questions became more Conservative. This makes me wonder if inherently people think more Conservatively. But, Inglehart found out through research that this is not the case and that many people have deep-rooted liberal views, so I was left a little confused.
This article just reinforced the idea for me that the reelection of Trump is not unlikely. And although I personally wish that were not true, I'm not sure what could be done to change it.
10
The Republican Party has been a well organized party, able to remain rock solid in tough circumstances. The Democratic Party has always had a problem with organization. That was true even during the Great Depression when Will Rogers lamented, "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
GOP party unity held during yesterday's impeachment trial rules fight in the Senate. While the cutting edge research summarized in this piece offers an explanation, I think it misses the mark.
In Rule and Ruin, Geoffrey Kabaservice details how the educated, liberal and moderate Republicans created a rift in the GOP and were driven out. Those educated liberal and moderates have found a home in the Democratic Party where they are the upstairs part of the upstairs-downstairs coalition. They are creating a rift in the Democratic Party today.
The Clintons and Joe Biden are the poster children for the upstairs wing. They are the neoliberals who have pursued bipartisanship and abandoned partisanship in governing. They have sought a grand coalition at the expense of the downstairs wing. The conservative economic, antitrust, labor, trade and tax policies have served the upper income professional and managerial class at the expense of the working class.
Without a calamity like the Great Depression, I doubt even an FDR could organize today's Democrats. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are trying but they can't muster the necessary media support.
4
@OldBoatMan
........because the MSM is owned by huge corporations.
Who dislike progressive positions.
As always, a great column. I enjoy Edsall's structure and support for arguments presented in the column.
4
This article brings into focus the Machiavellian brilliance of Trump. Make a lot of noise and spread fear at every turn.
8
Great, great column. We already knew that Trimp and Fox put most of their efforts into ginning up fear among their followers, and this column covers that. Now add Republican efforts to defund higher education, e.g., former Govs Brownback in KS and Walker in WI. And that the geography of America's political divides tracks the relative diversity of its localities, thus, largely blue coasts with a few blue dots in the red middle (I'm fortunate to live in a dot).
Interesting corollary: in the heyday of the Cold War, Americans were uniformly in fear of imminently dying in a superpower nuclear war. Perhaps that fear made us feel more aligned with each other, being all in one existentially-threatened tribe? And, curiously, an aspect of the Cold War was competition between the US and USSR to demonstrate to other nations which system resulted in the better society -- perhaps driving the US to pursue overt policies to diminish the effects of racism, increase wellbeing, and distribute its wealth more widely. Once we "won" the Cold War, that pressure went away, taking away the unifying society-wide existential fear and the fear-driven effort to demonstrate a better society to the rest of the world.
1
Why does trump persist? The other day i had a discussion with a man, a friend who had married his boyfriend a few months ago. He supports Trump though he voted for Obama twice and had many liberal social views. He even acknowledged that Trump had made many mistakes and was not a nice or ethical person. The essence of his position seemed to be that his portfolio was doing fine and why upset the apple cart and that we needed a strong man in leadership despite his other draw backs. No argument would persuade him that he was threatened in any way by this. Perhaps we as a country have become so degraded spiritually and ethically that money and power are our only guidelines and if so we really are in a wilderness where once cherished articles of faith in our country no longer matter at all.
25
While voters may be less tolerant, less empathetic and less interested in integrity than many political analysts think; the real question then becomes WHY?
The reasons of course, are manifold. But there's no way to deny digital intrusions have helped to further the disintegration and fragmentation of this society, as well as the apparent need of most Americans to feel "entertained" in order to become enthused or involved.
In many ways, that also explains the phenomenon known as Donald Trump.
It's fair to deduce that many of the supporters who attend his rallies are there more for the excitement than the message, and because this TV-celebrity-mad society craves the spotlight and performance as much as the president does, it's a perfect fit.
But unfortunately said "madness"also extends into the political world, which is why the Republican party has been transformed into a perfect host for this kind of creature and the vindictive, intolerant and often racist invective that it spouts.
By appealing to the lowest and most base part of human nature, this president and Republicans have hit paydirt and they aren't about to let it go.
And Democrats, who are now facing major splits within their own party are in no position to fight this.
It's hard to see how this can turn out well for this country.
20
@N. Smith,
Smith writes "It's hard to see how this can turn out well for this country." I disagree. All will turn out well for America, especially with the re-election of Donald J. Trump will be the best thing that can happen for America. Election of a progressive will spell doom for America and transform our beloved nation into the former GDR. Thank you.
1
@Southern Boy
And once again, I strongly disagree with you.
When a president chooses to address only that part of the country and the electorate that voted him, it's not a sign that all is going well with that country.
And without fair representation of all sides in the U.S. Congress, we face the possibility of becoming little more than an autocracy -- or worse, a dictatorship.
Unlike most Americans, I know the difference between the two having lived in the former East Germany.
And if Republicans are in control of all three branches of our government like they once were -- it basically has the same effect.
Nein. Danke.
1
One wonders about the wisdom of crowds in the wake of Edsall's piece. He says rather clearly that crowds, voters in mass, are not wiser that irritable individuals. They can be shortsighted, angry and harsh. We have surely seen that, from 40% of the crowd; the rest, the majority, seem not to be and are apparently appalled by Trump's behavior. So, the boys in the bar, the 40% are loud and obnoxious, drinking not thinking, but the rest are worth working on. Trump has actually taken his early advantage, as Edsall outlines it, of playing to the light thinkers and squandered it.
However, and its a bit 'however', it depends where the votes fall. If you are successful in the right bars maybe he wins again, not in total votes but the odd institution of the electoral college skews the vote awarding some bars more impact that others.
All that has to be considered in the analysis not just the constitutionally squabbling Democrats.
3
I am 68 and grew up in a family of five children and two parents. All but my mother and I were/are Republicans. I've always wondered why she and I would be so different from our other family members. I am the only one who graduated from a four year college but I was always an 'FDR Democrat' from the time I can remember.
As a child, it was always my siblings and father's goal to 'get my goat', to make fun of my sensitivity to others' plight and left-leaning sensibilities, to hurt my too-prominent feelings. And that's what I see as the most important goal of Republicans: to put down everyone who sees the world differently, to 'own' the liberals, to 'get their goat'. That is more important to them than their own children's futures. Being 'right' is the most important even at the expense of other human beings.
Conservatives are fearful people and they way they deal with that is to put others down - either verbally, through laws or through guns.
47
@sophia
Putting others down = "So much winning".
I'm sorry that you had to deal with that same in your own family.
2
Trump persists because he is what most Americans want in their president. Many will not admit it but they support him; they are the silent majority. I am proud to say that I am part of that group. Thank you.
2
That assertion might hold water if Trump had won the popular vote (instead of losing it by a historically wide margin) or ever once gained majority approval, but he never has. He’s president because of a system that allows a rural, bigoted plurality to install a president against the will of the majority, and he persists because he is still skating on the economy he inherited.
13
@Cousin Greg,
The Founding Fathers instituted the Electoral College for the very reason Trump won and to prevent candidates like HRC and the looming crop of progressives from winning. Even then in the late 18th century they realized that coastal cities would become havens for the lunatic fringe. They realized that the section of the country, now known as "fly-over" would harbor the true Patriots. Thank you.
@Southern Boy So you say that most Americans want an ill-educated, low information, mean spirited, nasty, corrupt, self-serving, anti-democratic narcissist. Good to know.
1
Thank you for this well summarized background regarding the current state of the union. We all seem to know we are at a tipping point. Describing the underlying human trait to more easily skew conservative is a great insight. This is playing out today as many well-educated Republican senators hunker down to protect the threat to their political survival despite the blatant trampling of the rule of law the president of the United States.
I understand there are a group of Republicans in power with the desire to burn the country to the ground so that they may remake it to conform with their moral code. It has been harder to understand the pathetic weakness of Republican moderates. How can these moderates not see the potential risks to the foundation of our democracy? How can they not see that their short-term survival threatens to unleash the degradation of a rule of law? Accepting the values of the current President, cowering in fear of his retaliation, ultimately leads to acceptance of corruption resembling an authoritarian or failed state.
It is more likely we will somehow survive this threat to the rule of law despite a gross lapse, but it is a risk that we will not slip off the edge of a cliff.
5
Having lived in Europe for a long time, I do think class segregation is a big issue here that leads to cruelty.
When people hear someone's story face-to-face, their attitude often changes dramatically from not caring to being emphatic.
Democratizing the school system (tuition-free and more high quality schools available to everyone) is an important key.
Of course, it's all a theoretic discussion if Trump gets re-elected.
Let's focus on that problem first.
9
Republicans used the race tinged Southern Strategy to take over the electorate south of the Mason Dixon Line. While Democrats still had the upper mid-west they could still win sometimes, even within the scale tilting Electoral College. Now the mid-west is up for grabs and the hapless Democratic Party can't come up with a unified front behind a winning candidate. Sad.
11
This is another one of those “studies” that assume that American culture is human nature. Let’s start with the basic distinction between open- and closed-mindedness which is here assimilated to the left-right divide. But across the world, closed-mindedness, search for purity and intolerance are correlated with LEFT-wing movements. The Bolsheviks, the Khmer Rouge, the Shining
Path and so many more display precisely the character traits which are here assumed to characterize the right-wingers. Second, why should openness to new experiences be correlated to empathy? I have lived across the world; I am an immigrant; I thrive in the Bay Area surrounded by people from China, Iran, India and 60 more countries. Does it mean I want homeless in my backyard? Absolutely not; and I would be happy if they were treated as junkies and mentally ill are treated in China and even Norway: forcibly put away into closed institutions. In general, this article makes the mistake of connecting personality traits to political views in a way that is blunt, culturally uninformed and ethnocentric.
12
@Mor I think that the meaning of words like left and right or capitalist and socialist are quite slippery. In my opinion, in the context of Mr. Edsel's op-ed left means people who are generally in favor of higher taxes and more social (government) services while right is those who tend to prefer lower taxes and fewer government services. (Those who prefer lower taxes and more government services are living in a dream.)
Groups like Khmer Rouge and so on don't really fall on this scale regardless of what they or others may say about them. They are interested in seizing and maintaining power and mostly do not care about either taxes (except to enrich themselves) or government services.
2
@mor
A recent personal experience in mental health care in Norway:
https://u.osu.edu/nursinginnorway/2019/05/31/day-5-psychiatric-and-mental-health-care-in-oslo-norway/
1
@Alan White words have meanings; capitalism and socialism or left and right have precise definitions, which people should know. And not all politics is about taxes. The right wing populist movements in Europe are generally in favor of raising or at least maintaining them in order to provide better services to the local population, while excluding immigrants. Must right-wing movements across the world have been in favor of more, not less, government. And what you say about the Khmer Rouge only shows you know nothing about them - which makes you no different from most Americans. Pol Pot and Stalin lived modest lives and we’re not interested in personal wealth. This does not make them any less of monsters but very different kind of monsters from kleptocrats like Trump. Try to think outside your echo chamber.
Historically, nations haven't rapidly transitioned to a democracy or republic. Rapid transitions are usually towards dictatorships. A republic is a difficult, constructive endeavor. Dictatorships are destructive and easily achieved. Social entropy on display.
9
We've been simultaneously hostile and welcoming to outsiders throughout our history. But governing is still primarily about ensuring productive and secure lives for our citizens. That's where things started to go wrong. As to why we tolerate any politician, the more immediate opportunities the less relevant politicians become. This is still the key to the upcoming election
4
I think the myth of America as the "shining city on the hill" has become exposed.
Its sad to think that all the ideals that America once claimed is merely hollow talk...to make American feel good about our "special" status.
The reality that was slowly setting in is now accelerated by Trump.
19
We are a nation of "thoughts and prayers" instead of actions.
1
@Maison
When was it ever? Was it a shining city to a Blackman who fought in the Big War, went home to Mississippi and couldn’t vote? It was a marketing ploy. Better to know the truth about your country. This is America.
2
Maybe this article can add that Election Day should be a national holiday? Just about every nation on earth has a holiday, or a reduced workday, or has it on the weekend. Most people don't vote, and a lot of it is apathy, but a lot is people who have to work, and don't have states that provide absentee ballots and who often make it hard to vote in person. If you made Election Day a holiday Trump would lose by far more than 3.8 million, as he did in 2016. Take away the Electoral College and gerrymandering to boot, and you'd get an election that was reflective of the people and their "values," which is the Democrat winning in a landslide.
23
A sizable number of Americans have to choose between the essentials of life (paying for health care, eating healthy foods, providing a safe home and good educational opportunities for their children) and a lifestyle worth living (non-work time to experience joy, having some material items that please them). They are less tolerant of allowing immigrants to move here and receive services that have been paid for by the community, less tolerant of those living outside their community to dictate choices, less tolerant of changes to work options especially those driven by technology they have not experienced or understand the implications of its use.
If you do not understand this, you do not understand what drives people to vote for Trump.
6
@Peters These things we understand...why they don't vote for people who might, in the richest nation in the world, pass laws for universal health care or reasonable family leave or a living minimum wage we do not. Instead, the precariot is told to hate the other, and that their risk is their fault. Instead of making sure that corporations and others take care of the community, "freedom" is used and it is ever man for themselves. The poor in Europe have health care, better housing and education, and more stable communities...and guess what ? Taxes aren't much different, contrary to popular opinion....
4
Because hatred is such powerful emotion that it numbs the pain any self-inflicted wound might cause. The United States is an uneducated, dysfunctional. racist and misogynistic country and not until we accept that, the Trumps of the world will always be cheered.
1
@Peters
Actually it is the rich 1%, not immigrants, who are absorbing the country's wealth. I also think Trump's demagoguery is designed to distract attention from the real threat : resurgent Naziism. Two Nazi incidents just last week.
1
Reinhold Niebuhr warned against viewing politics as a simple struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness. To be sure, nativism, racism, sexism, and other –isms have deep roots in a country with a legacy of slavery, colonial expansion, and violence. But if we are to be truly empathetic, we must see through the lens of our adversaries.
Richard Reeves reminds us that the beneficiaries of our current system aren’t confined to the 1 percent, but perhaps the top fifth which takes many steps to ensure its privileged position and that of its children. One can speak out against racism, sexism, homophobia, and climate change, and still act in ways that reinforce inequality. The political system advanced a host of policies that resulted in huge disparities in wealth and well-being. Should we be surprised that many regard the tectonic shifts in culture and behavior as signs of rampant individualism, the breakdown of the family and community, and a decline in respect for the “traditional” American values of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility? Now we are experiencing the blowback. We reap what we sew. -- Steven Mintz, New York City
5
I am definitely a part of the political left. Towards the end of Obama presidency, however, I started to feel concerned about the extreme to which the left pursues expansion of rights. While huge progress had already been made in gay rights, etc., more and more boutique rights issues such as bathrooms, were being put passionately on the table. Maybe in the grand scheme of history, Trump comes and goes, but this era will serve as an adjustment for survival of democracy.
12
@Max4
The reason why you see this is because American history shows that if you do expand and codify rights, you will always be in risk of losing them, especially is there’s an economic interest by other people to take them away from you.
1. Native American treaties.
2. Reconstruction dismantled.
3. Chinese Immigration Ban.
4. Prohibition
5. Sedition and espionage act.
6. The 1850 compromise
**** Women’s Suffrage is one example of the these “boutique” rights you talk about. Nowadays none disputes that women’s right to vote shouldn’t be a universal human right.
So, it doesn’t matter whether some people like it or not. The issue is whether there is a right or not. But for having that conversation the majority of Americans are ill equipped since they have never read Rosseau, Spinoza or Montesquieu and our social studies and civics curriculum is full platitudes and water down to the maximum.
2
If being antiracist is seen as extreme, rather than necessary, we are in deep trouble indeed.
23
@Fred
Amen
2
@Fred
I don't think being antiracist is "extreme", but it does tend to blind progressives to broader issues. Two examples:
When neo-Nazis marge around waving Confederate flags, I interpret it as a threat to overthrow the government. But progressives interpret it as an "expression of racism".
When Trump fantasized about jailing his critics or exiling them from the country, I thought it was proof that he was a dictator wannabe. But progressives ignored the broader implications and focused on the fact that the critics were from racial minority groups.
2
There’s a great of scholarly analysis here, which unintentionally may be making problem worse through the kind of resulting chaos that is similar in effect to what Trump intentionally sows. Those who pride themselves with the label “progressive” may oppose the wisdom of living within limits as offensively compromising to individual integrity. However, not doing so seems, by definition, to look like anarchy, ie, no rules ... “me first;” “I’m right by right;” etc. And when we’re there in full enough force we wind up needing a savior who provides support ... which is where Trump steps in. The privilege of Americans has led many to the high level of obsession with self as seen in Trump ... who sells this to the nation as being okay. The chaos he sows even affects the un-recruited to fuel his dominance.
5
We live in an increasingly intolerant society.
It is all about the individual.
What is best for society or the country is less important.
We become offended much too easily where no perceived slight goes unnoticed (or unpunished).
We rewrite history to meet our distorted view.
We create a reality to rationalize our own perspective.
We allow our suppressed fears and prejudices to rise.
Trump did not start this but he is a product and messenger. We have a president who promotes the intolerance, is self absorbed, offends easily, punishes those who disagree, rewrites history to create his own reality and gives support for our suppressed fears and prejudices. A president who is not a model of hope but a purveyor of fear. History records many of these people. Some have led their community to chaos, some their country, some the world.
The question is how far will Trump go before he is tolerated no more? My fear is we are not at the end and the impeachment may only serve to feed the intolerance and distorted reality. Is impeachment the right course? Yes, no question. Is he guilty? Again, no question. How it is perceived is what matters most. These are days where perception is reality and who can bend it to their will wins. Right now, intolerance is winning because the individual what matters to too many.
28
I wonder how many of the respondents in the survey summarized in the graphic were actually poor. My guess is: not many. If you asked a poor person why they are poor, they might answer that they can't find good jobs which they are qualified, that the jobs for which they are qualified are being taken over by immigrants who are willing to work for less than minimum wage, that they are not able to reach job sites that are offering jobs because of a lack of transportation options, or that the job they used to have was outsourced or automated away.
Maybe we should address those concerns rather than pontificate about evolutionary societal makeups?
23
@Ara
Spot on.
This article is the same-old, same-old: the academic and media elite once again telling the rest of us why we think and vote the way we do. They know us better than we do and can tease out deep themes and meanings that we can't see ourselves.
One wonders if any of the academics cited here would be able to sit for a few hours tossing back beers with ordinary people in a neighborhood bar in fly-over country.
Or would it be, well, just too awkward...
6
@Stuck on a mountain
There was a time in this country when education was respected and desirous for ones children because it was empowering and led to better citizens and a stronger nation.
Now many people seem to only value the ability to drink a beer. So goes the nation.
14
@Stuck on a mountain Sure "Why do you vote in people who literally work for the guy who owns the Company Store ?" also "Why don't you all form a Union down at the plant....they aren't taking care of you".....
we all seek" to enter our house justified " I am struck by the lack of awareness of my liberal fellow travelers .We say the right things about those left behind but support political actors who harm them ie the Clintons and all those politicians who supported deindustrialization without and inadequate remedies for the consequences. The professional who contributed to opioid crisis ,disability bar,pain docs and drug detailers by helping to process displace workers into SSDI . A little awareness please
9
Frankly, although I have enjoyed Mr. Edsall's perspectives in the past, this column strikes me as hopelessly naïve about what binds us as Americans (money and its pursuit) and what defines us as a Nation (freedom and its defense). I don't think half of us have the slightest idea what concepts such as implicit bias really mean, or care. And I am talking about all generations, regardless of their degree of youth, seniority, enlightenment or ignorance. I simply think 200-plus years of momentum as a single united country has landed us where we are and most of us are more fixated on saving money at the mall, etc. etc., than on having a President who stands for something sincere and true and clear. And that's a devastating critique of us all.
19
Your opening paragraph:
"The failure of the American electorate to rise up in opposition to President Drumpf — whose outrages are well-documented — suggests that voters are less tolerant, less empathetic and less insistent on integrity than many believe."
I grew up in Louisiana. My reaction to your statement is, "Your point being?"
(Apologies to folks from Minnesota and other places where integrity is considered a positive.)
7
This is so beautifully written. And upsetting. And enlightening. Thank you, Thomas Edsall!
19
@Carol I want to second your emotion. And add one thought: I wonder if the impeachment process now underway represents the real beginning of the breakup of the nation? I, for one, wouldn't mind ...!
This seems to support something I've been thinking about for a while. As distressing as it may be, people can only accept so much diversity and only so fast. Social democracies thrive in relatively homogeneous societies, but now we seen even Sweden and France rebelling to such an influx. Here in America it takes several generations to assimilate. My Italian family was not "white" until after WW II. I am reading a book written in 1920 about a small Minnesota town in 1915, The Scandinavian immigrant farmers are not considered "American" and are looked down upon.
"So there’s the paradox of our times: it is likely that rather less liberal democracy will ultimately make liberal democracy more secure." May be truer than we want to believe.
29
“Every study I’ve ever seen across the social sciences shows that education promotes less in-group favoritism and greater tolerance toward those unlike ourselves,” she continued. “In panel studies that track the same people over time, as people gain advanced levels of education, they become more tolerant and favorable toward liberal democratic norms.”
There is no greater argument than this for affirmative efforts to diversify colleges and universities, to desegregate neighborhoods and to provide equitable funding to all schools in America.
Which is precisely why conservatives oppose these things.
45
Does this op-ed explain why the Republican party has shed its former skin and morphed into a party that calls itself Conservative yet resembles more of a personality cult. I understand as resources become more scarce, it is human nature to protect what I have against those who will take it away, although Trump has already caused economic pain to those working class tribes that worship him the most. The tariffs which are still in place from the US-China trade war have cost the average person $675 per year for consumer goods. The tax cuts aimed at easing Corporate tax rates eliminated tax deductions for those in the middle, thus providing gains for those at the top & stock holders, yet saving the blue collar class very little. The perception that immigration is what is threatening the average working person's economic or safety situation has proven to be fallacious. Immigrants actually improve the economic well being of communities rather than vice versa & are less likely to engage in violent crime. The politicians like Trump want so called Conservatives to believe that brown people are threatening their way of life, yet these are fear tactics which strengthen his cult like status rather than prophetic words of wisdom shared among his voters. Trump's cult isn't concerned with blatant crimes that he's engaged in like bribing & extorting a foreign leader to help him get re-elected. In fact, his cult of sheep like thinkers only perceive as a threat what he tells them on Twitter.
18
Mr Edsall's column is scholarly and well thought out, with relevant references from various psychological scientists to bolster his argument. However, I think there is another important factor at work in voters tolerance for change and that has to do with the political leadership. I believe we all have the capacity for good, our "Better Angels," and also for evil that can be directly and powerfully affected by our leaders. A good leader, such as Churchill, FDR or Lincoln may through their words and attitudes transform an unbearable situation to one that is tolerable by appealing to our compassion for others. However, a dictatorial leader can summon up the half-tamed beast within all of us and weaponize those emotions for hatred and intolerance. Trump and his fellow autocrats aim to evoke primitive emotions in their followers, an exercise that was on display this past Martin Luther King Day when 22,000 white nationalists came to Richmond locked and loaded. This is scary!
49
@Lawrence Brown : I'm beginning to think I'll hightail it to Canada for election day 2020 (voting absentee beforehand, of course). Prince Edward Island is calling to me, "Come to safety and get away from angry, fearful people with AR-15s.
4
Help me out here please.
I'm a liberal who grew up in the Midwest but still can't understand the conservative mind.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
A conservative, generally, believes a person lives in poverty by his/her own bad choices or lack work ethic, especially if that person is a minority.
But if the white middle class is gutted, jobs are lost and economies shrinking, making them more vulnerable to poverty, it is the fault of a liberal, socialist government, the Democrats, the coastal elites but not themselves.
I realize that's a gross simplification but it seems about right to me.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
373
@Bill
You are mostly wrong. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, but tempered with realism. Some people are in dire straights due to poor choices, others due to bad luck or circumstance.
The unemployed may be so because of events beyond their control, but not usually forever beyond their control. But a rapist is not a rapist because society made him do it.
Conservatives are also skeptical that government programs work as hoped, or do so without significant unintended consequences.
Conservatives believe that free markets and incentives generally lead to better outcomes for all. Much of government regulation is distorted to benefit the few (and not the intended few).
Conservatives are not generally racist, and many black people are conservative.
There’s more, but how about that for a start.
14
@Bill The Democrats brought about many of the changes that gutted communities, ie Nafta (developed by Bush, signed by Clinton).
But more importantly they have seemed unconcerned about the effects on people who were fomerly middle class.
5
@Bill
It is vitally important to step out of your bubble and listen to others who disagree and who have a different world view -- even if it is painfully misguided. The cultivation of division by media is killing us as a country. The reality is we ll have far more common ground than real disagreement.
3
Since the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 I've seen Americans become more tolerant, more socially liberal, and gain more civil rights. I've also seen the Reagan landslide and the growing power of the Republican Party, the degradation and destruction of our environment, the growth of wealth inequity, and loss of a middle class. Something has to break, and now it has. Thanks Mr Edsall for exploring this crisis from so many different disciplines and viewpoints. It is complicated.
21
This argument slips the rails. It abandons the most important question that it raises--why voters are less interested in integrity than we hoped. One can differ on (eg) the root causes of poverty, but still hold onto basic standards of decency. It's the latter failure that is destroying the American experiment.
27
"Low effort thinking" is a useful concept. A candidate who has detailed plans for attacking complex problems is not going to go far with a large segment of the public, who reduces complexity to black and white, God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
It should not be surprising that the Republican attack on public schools is a long term approach to ensuring there will be plenty of low effort thinkers among the voters. Make sure there is enough confusion about a topic, and many will default to a simple, usually status quo, solution. Think: global warming.
As for the effect of alcohol on thinking, GWB was promoted as the guy you'd want to have a beer with. And we all know how that turned out.
39
As always, I interesting article and commentary. My two cents: Democrat politicians need to be cognizant of the ambivalence present in all of us. Particularly with regards to immigration we need a more balanced approach that recognizes the fear and distrust affecting many citizens while appealing to our common humanity. Why can't we be more like Canada which has stringent controls but which is also seen as being welcoming and tolerant? Democrats should try to turn the hatred against illegal immigrants to hatred of the corporations that employ and ill use them and Americans by not hiring them instead preferring to suppress wages. Let's lock up the employers instead of these poor illegal immigrants.
24
Some of this calls to mind what Will Rogers once said: I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.
6
Excellent essay: both the argument and the support information seem to mesh with reality. The Democrats I know and love (I'm one!) are educated thoughtful people who argue well -- and rarely spend hours knocking on doors. The liberal views espoused are sincere -- but I wonder how many would vote for Warren if they thought their investment portfolios would be severely wounded in the offing.
Many progressive people tend toward rational, abstract thinking -- cf. college educated -- while many conservatives may be more apt to think from the gut. Thus, not a lot of cross-over communication with Dems and Repubs. Trump knows what he's doing when he plies crowds with his idiocies.
Threat and anxiety tends to make us more conservative, as implied here. And god knows Trump is doing that to all of us -- even liberal Dems are afraid: witness the odd squabbles with candidates, which could be avoidance of head-on attack of Trump. We hate him -- but how are we going to take him on? And who can manage it?
We err when we think humans are more rational than they are: we should strive to be our better selves. But we shouldn't forget the reptilian brain that drives many decisions. After all, look at the decision in charge of the country now.
16
"Every study I’ve ever seen across the social sciences shows that education promotes less in-group favoritism and greater tolerance toward those unlike ourselves,” she continued. “In panel studies that track the same people over time, as people gain advanced levels of education, they become more tolerant and favorable toward liberal democratic norms."
And education has that effect not because we're taught to be empathetic, but because we learn to put effort into our thinking. In the process, we transform ourselves. Learners become different from the people they'd otherwise have been. Tragically, they may thereby become different from their parents.
There are many great parents who desire just that outcome for their children. There are others, perhaps great parents in every way but that, who can't bear it. Even such a good thing as education leaves its trail of broken hearts.
15
The fact of the matter is the world is and always has been a diverse place where humans have had to find a way to survive in terms of other human tribes, and Nature which isn't about us, it is about diverse, rampant, interconnected living beings, and on our own, without our protective groups, we die easily. Our minds are formed in the creche of our family and our family's society. We never have all the information needed to make the kind of wise choices we might make if our minds were larger in terms of information content. Education does help with that issue, but like all things in human culture, it is rationed out to those in favor in any given social setting (please see the recent college entrance scandal), it is not universally available to all members of US society. Neither are living-wage jobs, food, housing, healthcare, clothing, etc.—all the things that predict people will get along more easily. This is across the board in all social groups in all societies extant on Earth, with the possible exception of indigenous cultures who are being exterminated by rich cultures everywhere. We can keep configuring all this as us versus them until we go extinct. But, in the end, we are the only humans in this Universe. This essay makes it clear we have to band together, but how? Us versus them agitation works just a little too well for any neutral outside observer to feel comfortable predicting this race will grow smart before we off ourselves. I hope we do get smart. Will we?
7
Very interesting combination of shrewd analysis and cookie-cutter academic thinking. Karen Stenner is a find, however.
Although I would not identify as a liberal (or a conservative), I certainly do engage in politics largely as a spectator or hobbyist. The idea that one MUST be directly involved (beyond simply voting), or else one is in some way deplorable, is a remarkable one. In a free country (such as it is) one has the option of engaging or not. It's perfectly justifiable to concentrate on one's own life, or on local politics (for example), rather than becoming deeply involved in national politics and national issues. The idea that each individual can "make a difference" in a nation as big and complex as the United States, is a fairy tale. In any case, I personally am deeply convinced that a determinist viewpoint is not simply justifiable, but correct -- as borne out by the events of the past 50 years and more. Surely I have the right to believe that events will follow a general course that cannot be deflected, and that I have a right to concentrate on other things that concern or interest me?
2
@Jon Harrison - Looks as though you engage in Times Editorial Board thinking, they chose one progressive and one conservative and you identify as neith but rather as spectator or hobbyist!
I have lived in Sweden for 23 years, and 18 of those - at least - I have been a volunteer at the Red Cross in Linköping, the size of my home-away-from home, Burlington VT.
The individual makes a difference within a sphere of an infinite range of sizes. I believe that each volunteer makes a difference over time, a positive difference, for one or more of the asylum seekers who come there.
And, equally important, most of the individual asylum seekers who come there to try to learn and use the language and to get to know more and more Swedish citizens, many of us dual, makes a difference for us.
I truly could write books about the way that the individual Mohameds, Fatimas, Sonias, Ashars and more have made a difference for me.
Perhaps you could go over from spectator to volunteer, maybe at English as a second language program or something comparable.
Only-NeverinSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
14
@Larry Lundgren "The individual makes a difference within a sphere of an infinite range of sizes." Absolutely correct.
Doing nothing is called indifference, and it too makes a huge difference.
8
@Larry Lundgren You're entitled to your beliefs, Larry. You haven't actually understood what I was attempting to say, but that's on me not you, as the limited space and my hurried writing (it's just a comment, after all) make it difficult to convey what I actually believe.
I have worked as a volunteer in my community and as an unpaid writing coach at the local public school. You seem to have taken the idea of "spectator" beyond what I meant or what was in the article.
Shorter: Complexity confuses and frightens conservatives and that's why they stay that way.
I've thought for a while that we're back in the 1850s with a burgeoning Know-Nothing party and that the Republicans are terrified of the schism that looms ahead which is why they've closed ranks - to delay it. Political change can't come too soon for me.
8
This editorial took a sharp left turn at the end (pun intended) to get to its point. Yes, there is a lot of NIMBYism among liberals and a lot less blatant racism, sexism, homophobia. While education plays a part in that, from personal experience, I think people become more tolerant the more they interact with people unlike themselves at school, at work, and in social settings. I think its also important that those interactions are among social and economic equals to make people feel more comfortable with those unlike themselves.
As far as the liberal vs. conservative coalitions, my theory has always been that it's much easier to get conservatives going in the same direction, because socially (today's conservatism is not financial), they all believe the same things, while liberals have much more diversity of thought and competing agendas. That's why the only issue that will unite liberals in the upcoming election is defeating Trump. And that just may be enough.
8